Mach 2 Telford release: 1/72 VC-10

[bentwaters81tfw]

How to make a small fortune manufacturing models...............start with a large fortune. Even the big boys, Airfix and Revellogram have gone bust more than once. We are lucky that Alan manufactures for the pleasure of making things modellers want, and the big boys shy away from. We are also fortunate that Alan made many of his masters as coursework for his Engineering degree, and they have been gathering dust ever since. Now they are coming to fruition, and he knows he is never going to make a mint from them. He is giving us models many have clamoured for for years, yet still some 'modellers' say, 'I'll wait for the IM one'. There are a lot of people who are going to be disappointed in the long run when these IM kits don't appear. Maybe the thought of some work and real modelling frightens them, or they feel they are not capable of meeting the task, who knows? It took me decades to tackle vacforms or resin.

All I will say is Alan is providing us with some long awaited canvases. If you want one, buy one, or miss out. The more he sells, the more new projects will follow, and the more gaps in the market will be filled.

[Stu_davros]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

It seems to me there are a few lessons here.

1. If you want to sell, you have to bring the product to the market     (pretty basic business rule)

2. Those of us who care about accuracy of shape are in a minority     (hardly news)

3. Even modellers do not pay attention to the quality of previous releases from companies    (or live forever in hope...sad but true) 

4. Complaining will bring some results, sometimes.   (Certainly more often than keeping quite about problems)

5. Extravagant over-puffing of certain minority types is endemic   (If I like a subject, it must be incredibly popular and will sell gazillions making a fortune for the manufacturer)

I couldn't agree more, it seems there are a number of people in this hobby that are self declared "experts" but they are not the majority.

I bought one of Didier's BOAC VC10 kits on Sunday, I like it a lot. It will go in the stash with quite a few other Mach 2 kits and i'm sure i will enjoy building it because that's the main thing i want from a hobby - enjoyment.

 

Stuart

[Nocoolname]

24 minutes ago, Stu_davros said:

I couldn't agree more, it seems there are a number of people in this hobby that are self declared "experts" but they are not the majority.

I bought one of Didier's BOAC VC10 kits on Sunday, I like it a lot. It will go in the stash with quite a few other Mach 2 kits and i'm sure i will enjoy building it because that's the main thing i want from a hobby - enjoyment.

 

Stuart

Thank you. Thought it was just me. I'll be buying the Mach 2 kit but probably next year sometime. I appreciate the passion of some towards their subject but as an (ex) pilot of some the near fundamentalism towards shape/detail when someone has clearly done the hobby a great favour already really drives me up the wall. 😶

[woody37]

57 minutes ago, Stu_davros said:

I couldn't agree more, it seems there are a number of people in this hobby that are self declared "experts" but they are not the majority.

I bought one of Didier's BOAC VC10 kits on Sunday, I like it a lot. It will go in the stash with quite a few other Mach 2 kits and i'm sure i will enjoy building it because that's the main thing i want from a hobby - enjoyment.

 

Stuart

That's why I think there's room in this market for both the Mach2 kit and Alans resin kit. My way of thinking is slightly different. I will only probably ever build one VC10 kit so I'd rather go for the more accurate one even if it costs more (without breaking the bank of course!). 

[Graham Boak]

I agree that there is room for another such kit, but so far the choice is between an available kit and vapourware in an indefinite future.  Sorry Alan but life is harsh like that.  I believe that the hobby has advanced from crude beginnings because people like you do care about outline and detail, and have convinced the manufacturers that getting it right is as profitable, if not more so, than getting it wrong.  That, and enough modellers who will go that extra mile to buy such things in the face of a majority who will accept almost anything with the right label as long as it bears a vague resemblance.  I wouldn't describe those who would buy, and have bought, the Mach 2 VC10, at quite that level.  Nor is the kit,  judging from the less inflamed devotees, quite that bad.  But it is a slippery slope...

 

Away from the mass-production runs, as something as niche as a VC10 in 1/72 has to be, then the first into the market will win out.  Especially if the more accurate later kit promises to be considerably more expensive.  Good luck to Alan if he does do beyond making for himself the best possible model of a VC10, in order to make it available to others.  However promises to buy come cheap.  For this kind of project there's a lot to be said in favour of crowd funding, and it could provide a better knowledge of the real level of demand.

[tomprobert]

Just a thought... could Alan’s more accurate cockpit glazing piece be mated to the Mach 2 fuselage?

A bit of fettling would be needed no doubt, but Alan could make himself a very rich man by selling separate cockpit glazings to the many who have bought the Mach 2 kit and who want a better representation of the real thing..?

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by tomprobert
Typos

[Icelandic Fine Art]

No need to apologise Graham, you are quite right, of course, I only did the VC10 for modellers and now they have found the better kit, Mach 2, since they have the sales to prove to it and I guess at the end of the day, its only sales that counts. I don't actually need the VC10 as a kit, in time one would probably fine that lots of after market parts will appear for the Mach 2 VC10 and all will be well. 

Tomprobert, I wonder if Airgraphics are not already working on a nose correction set, I am sure they or another firm are. In time, we may well find a whole aftermarket industry growing up around the Mach 2 kit. 

 

Alan

[71chally]

22 minutes ago, tomprobert said:

Just a thought... could Alan’s more accurate cockpit glazing piece be mated to the Mach 2 fuselage?

A bit of fettling would be needed no doubt, but Alan could make himself a very rich man by selling separate cockpit glazings to the many who have bought the Mach 2 kit and who want a better representation of the real thing..?

The problems are far worse than just a new windscreen, the whole nose section is off in shape.

That is apart from other issues with wing detail and the fairing to fuselage.

At the very least it would need a new forward end to correct successfully.

 

What I still have to see is the section through the fuselage, as it isn't circular in reality.

 

Personally speaking, I would only by a kit that is reasonably good in outline and shapes, as these are the hardest things to correct for a modeller like myself.

 

A comment was made earlier in wonderment of how this kit may have been researched.

I can not understand it, a project like this must be a huge commitment in company funds and time, and surely it's the same cost and time to get the kit basically right, than it is to get it wrong.

There is an abundance of information and actual airframes out there to use for references.

 

I'm sorry, but it really strikes me that someone thought that 'near enough is good enough' for this product and that it would sell reasonably well being the first to market.

 

I really hope that Icelandic will produce an accurately shaped 10 for us (that I will buy), though I also get completely what @Graham Boak is saying.

 

[cngaero]

Just a thought, there is an awful lot of nay saying going on about the new Mach 2 VC10. Granted the nose shape looks wrong, but has there been any actual physical reviews of the kit to ascertain the actual amount of work needed to rectify the problem(s)? 

I'm not trying to stir up a hornet's nest here, but I'm just trying to cut Didier at Mach 2 a little bit of slack. At the end of the day, at least he has provided us with an injection molded VC10 in 1/72 scale, which no other injection manufacturer has looked at, or is ever likely to. 

It may well be that Airgraphics are already on the case with a replacement nose section as well as their other planned VC10 goodies, which is good as this is helping to keep another manufacturer in business. Overall, this has got to be good for the hobby surely. 

Can you realistically see any of the mainstream manufacturers such as Airfix or Revell for example even considering such things as the Tri Star, VC10, Britannia, Voyager, Hastings, Argosy etc in 1/72 scale, I don't think so.  

Let's be grateful that someone at least is trying to give us what we want. 

However, at the end of the day, whatever the subject, whatever the price and whatever the shape issues, we don't have to buy it.

After all, there is always scratch building or vacforms. 

 

[Radleigh]

I'm holding off the Mach2 VC-10 at the moment, sadly the nose putting me off... but if someone comes out with a replacement I will get one. A kit I've wanted for years after working on them for 5-6 years... such a lovely aircraft. 

 

 

[bzn20]

16 hours ago, ho590hm said:

I will try and get hold of some decent drawings

Have you got a full set of VC10 APs , Vol6 and Vol 3 ? You want either Chap 56 windows or even maybe Chap 53 fuselage

16 hours ago, ho590hm said:

Still need to pull out the actual GA of the windscreen, but working on it.  The maintenance manuals and Illustrated Parts Catalogue do not provide enough help.

I've got a copy of the best Scale drawing of the VC10 (C.Mk.1) outside of Vickers own . Its zoomable and measurements can be taken . Using the passenger windows as 20 inch pitch between window centres. Give me your email and I'll email you or anyone else who wants a copy .

If you have access to it . get Vickers drawing  79938 SHT3 , Vickers VC10 General arrangement of Fuselage , General . It's AO size . Got everything on there Stns ,cross sections ,you name it .

[bzn20]

16 hours ago, Stu_davros said:

this hobby that are self declared "experts

Is that aimed at me ? I just told it like it is ,up to anyone what they buy . The wings are wrong for two of the 3 boxings , not a small mistake , HDU on a C.1K and boxed as a K2 and C.1K serial , XV107. That's it . I didn't bring up the C/pit problem . Just so you know ..There are 2 of us on BM that have done a collective 40 years on VC10s. 40 hour minimum per week for 20 years each . Our RAF F4820s (IIRC the form number) were Q or X annotated for the VC10 .The other guy that's got my respect built a VC10 masterpiece .  2 VC10 expert's by RAF definition and 1 putting all his knowledge  in to practice building a VC10 to perfection . People reporting from Telford that the nose was off  just by Mark One eyeballing and it is . What do you call them ?  

At the same time it's a hobby obviously so what ever people want from it ,how to etc. it's okay and hope it sells well to modellers that know what they want .thought that's how it should be anyway and I've said it in previous comments . This is a repeat too. What if a Griffon engined Spitfire was sold as a BoB kit ? The Flak would be instant and run for pages in to double digits . Do we/I /you let people who care about these things drift in to spending good money or do we inform them ? What is the BM Forum about if it isn't discussed ? .The great thing about this kit is all the extra little detail sets coming on the back of it's issue . 

[rayprit]

Why do people continually slang this model off!!!!  Most of what is wrong with the kit is in the first 2 pages of this thread, people continually repeat and expand the faults and say they prefer the one that's not been produced yet?  Why don't you leave the poor guy alone, when he put that kit up for sale he did so in good faith, this site has a lot of moaning modellers, if you don't like his kit by the next one that comes along, don't bother saying that "we want to know the faults", - that the common answer to all critism of new kits coming on the market...………...same can be said for the owner who is thinking of producing a better VC-10...…….never heard somebody slang off the oppositions kit as much as he did until the mods stepped in and told people to comment ONLY on the MACH kit, his critism soon changed - very spiteful the way people are ripping into this kit...………...learn from the faults of the current topic, where he went wrong you are aware of and hopefully can ovoid the pitfalls...………..I have no interest in VC-10s but do read various threads and this one in particular seems to be very vindictive ……….the thread should be closed down as everything that needs to be said about this kit has been said

[The Tomohawk Kid]

21 hours ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

 

All I will say is Alan is providing us with some long awaited canvases. If you want one, buy one, or miss out. The more he sells, the more new projects will follow, and the more gaps in the market will be filled.

 

Nothing wrong with that as a whole.

 

However, what is little unsettling and perhaps unsavoury that another manufacturer saw fit to bash up another on an open/public forum, particulary when they are direct competitors, more so when its second time they have done so to a competitor. Like @rayprit I have no interest in a 1/72 VC-10. But, this thread has developed into a feeding frenzy and enough is enough.

 

Tommo.

Edited November 16, 2019 by The Tomohawk Kid

[Icelandic Fine Art]

No doubt this has turned into a feeding frenzy and perhaps the thread should be ended, obviously there are a lot of people who have a lot to say about the Mach 2 VC10 (myself included) but I dear say, it will have no affect on Mach 2 sales, as quite clearly people are buying the kits and are not bothered and there's nothing wrong with that; the success of a product is in its sales and Mach 2 will be more than happy with their sales figures and people want their kits.

 

Alan

[Glen]

BM is a discussion forum - plenty of kits have been criticised and/or praised over the years. No manufacturer is immune - that is no different to any other purchase that we are likely to make in life. There are many on here who are experts on particular subjects and it is why many of us come here to get a good understanding of the merits of a particular kit or subject that we know little about. 

 

I have a personal interest in the VC10 and would have been over the moon at an injection kit. Mach 2 are to be praised for producing it (and the other esoteric subjects they have tackled). Sadly the front end alone is just too wrong for me to spend £85. Others who are not so worried have bought one - that is their choice. I have purchased many kits that the experts don’t like but are close enough for my purposes.

 

I don’t think any of the discussion on this thread has been vindictive. There has been objective discussion of the kit, much of it by people who really know the subject. If it had been produced by one of the major manufacturers nobody would have been worried about the criticism or others advertising their correction sets on the thread - just take a look at the flak that Trumpeter et al take.

 

For those of us that are passionate about the Queen of the Skies this kit would have been Christmas come early. Unfortunately we are going to have to wait a little longer.

[xffw45343tg]

Multiple 1:72 VC-10's to choose from? Fantastic!

Experts with 1st hand experience contributing their informed opinion? Very welcome!

 

I have an Airways vac in the stash that I probably lack the skills to turn into XV109 (C1K), so I'm delighted at the increased likelihood of new aftermarket parts. Please don't scare the experts away with unnecessary threats, snide comments and bickering.

[Toe]

Any publicity is good publicity? Whether this is true or not over 14,000 views this thread has had to date and personally I'd like a VC10 to store lol, already have an Argosy to do, would love to get a Britannia but already have a built up one from Airways so in two minds with that one but crucially I haven't made a Mach2 kit, or is that comment jumping to conclusions....

 

I'm for one grateful for the existence of Mach2 and don't want this "debate" to curtail any future developments because lets face it, realistically none of the "mainstream" manufacturers are going to do the majority of what Mach2 produces.

 

On the other hand I'm grateful for the very detailed and accurate remarks on the kits and as said it's up to the purchaser to decide on whether to go  ahead and buy, it's given me food for thought, so thanks to bzn20 and Brizeman

Edited November 17, 2019 by Toe

[bzn20]

8 hours ago, Toe said:

it's up to the purchaser

Well put and well said . In a nut shell . Thanks

[bzn20]

10 hours ago, Kirk said:

XV109 (C1K),

Buy their Grey K2 ,its 99.9% C.1K just get rid of the HDH stuck under the rear fuselage . As they say at Argos … You're good to go !

[Vulcanicity]

To me there are just some parts of particular aircraft that contribute disproportionately to the overall aesthetic - features that if a kit manufacturer gets wrong, they are really noticeable. If someone gets a Spitfire fuselage slightly too short, I notice much less than I would notice an error in wing shape of a similar magnitude. I am more sensitive to the visual representation of some parts of an aircraft than others.

 

To my mind the nose of a VC-10, along with the fin shape to a lesser degree, fall into this category. What's more, since most airliners are effectively regular tubes with evenly tapered wings, features like noses are disproportionately important for many of these types as so much of the rest of them are fairly simple shapes. The nose shape totally defines a VC-10 or Comet or 707 to me in a way which subtleties of wing planform or wing-fuselage fairing shape can't.

 

So I looked at the Mach 2 kit at Telford, and considered the cost of the kit and the effort to change the nose to be "correct", and I passed. I can understand both view points and am very glad a VC-10 in IM is now available for those who see it as "good enough". But I can totally understand people seeing the nose and considering it a deal-breaker.

[Branky]

Well, having spoken to Didier at Telford about the VC10 for Telford 2020 he mentioned contemplating producing another 4 engined airliner from about the same period. But then one with 4 pods under the wings and it would be the -33 version. So gents, start sharpening your knifes daggers and everything else you can throw at Didier for making a mess of it.  BTW it would possibly have KLM markings too...  

[pinky coffeeboat]

^I'd love a DC-8 but then again I always wanted a 1/72 Caravelle and after buying the Mach2 release 15+ years ago...I still want one!!

 

Jeff

[thepureness]

This is very similar situation for the Avro York and Argosy that it tales a long time for an sprues, reviews or kit part photos to surface. Ultimately this is what would make or break my purchase

[Bangseat]

Wow what a thread...

 

I think that, in this market you will always have a choice of vacform, resin or Mach 2. I've built the Mach 2 Brit, and whilst we had some lively arguments and I did some things I regret, I'd do it again in a heartbeat. 

 

Meanwhile, I have resin kits gathering dust (and slowly warping) in my attic that fill me with dread. Once you accept that you will have to do some grown up modelling to get an accurate representation of a 1:72 airliner, you have to ask whether you would rather be sanding and scribing solid styrene, <1mm thick formed styrene sheet, or carcinogenic PU resin. 

 

Even a basically accurate injection-moulded hulk, like the Atlantis/Aurora DC-9, is a worthy acquisition in this scale and a canvas for months of enjoyable modelling. I must admit it does look like Mach 2 has made a mess of the nose, but a custom vac form part would sort that, or a clear resin insert, or maybe just bringing the clear part forward and building up material underneath the overhanging edge. 

 

I have to doff my hat to Didier for his products, of course they are not accurate, but as canvasses they are so much more workable than other media. With the cost of tooling for injection moulding, he must be taking big financial risks.