Jump to content

New Tool Airfix Vulcan 1/72 - Black Buck rebox announced


Adam Poultney

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Adam Poultney said:

I still hold out hope against all common sense that someone will produce a competing line of beautifully moulded Mk1 V Bombers....

Adam, you are an optimist.  It would be nice though, I remember the Vulcan B1 that was at Cosford in the early 70s, left outside to rot.  I wonder in 20 years how many of the Vulcans that are out in all weather will still be around? :unsure: 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Retired Bob said:

Adam, you are an optimist.  It would be nice though, I remember the Vulcan B1 that was at Cosford in the early 70s, left outside to rot.  I wonder in 20 years how many of the Vulcans that are out in all weather will still be around? :unsure: 

I hope, but don't expect. I've got to be optimistic about something in 2021 😂

 

XA900 was a sad story, came to the museum in a poor condition and I think there was a certain factor in its demise from the acquisition of XM598. Really it should have been scrapped in 1979 and replaced by XA903 which was still flying as a testbed until that year; XA903 would have fit the museum's experimental collection very well. 

 

Here's what I think about the 19 surviving vulcans:

XH558 - safe, very safe long term if hangar is ever built

XJ823 - safe

XJ824 - very safe, long term

XL318 - very safe, long term

XL319 - safe

XL360 - somewhat safe

XL361 - at some risk

XL426 - very safe

XM573 - very safe, long term (will possibly be moved inside when restoration is complete)

XM575 - safe

XM594 - safe

XM597 - at significant risk

XM598 - very safe, long term

XM603 - safe

XM605 - at low risk

XM606 - at significant risk

XM607 - at risk

XM612 - somewhat safe

XM655 - at risk from potential airfield development, otherwise safe

 

All cockpits safe except XH560 which is up for sale, so its situation is unknown.

Edited by Adam Poultney
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, At Sea said:

Aifix's website now showing summer 2021 not spring.  

 

I was hoping this meant the initial run was sold out but it looks like we will be waiting longer.  

 

As

 

According to the blog it says the next few weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Adam Poultney said:

XM597 - at significant risk

XM607 - at risk

XM655 - at risk from potential airfield development, otherwise safe

 

597 (and the Comet) should be going inside the current Concorde Hangar once the new hangar for G-BOAA has been built - I believe they have the funding but not the planning permission yet 

 

607 is repeatedly assured by the higher ups at Waddington to be in good condition with a small but dedicated team keeping her in as good a condition as possible. There is (was) a long term plan to give her some hangar time. Maybe this will happen once the E3's are gone?

 

655 is pretty much ok as the development has been knocked back and effectively blocked completely. The only issue left is the legal process for the council to buy the airfield off the current owner, if this is still the plan.

 

Cheers,

  WV908

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Adam Poultney said:

Here's what I think about the 19 surviving vulcans:

I know the V bombers were kept outside except for hanger maintenance but as  XH673 was to be a gate guard I would have expected it to be inhibited from corrosion before it was put in position at Marham and there should have been an on going program of anti-deterioration maintenance to prolong it's life.  As the Victors flew for over a decade after the Vulcans were taken out of service, the breaking up of XH673 is the reason of my concern for the Vulcans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Retired Bob said:

I know the V bombers were kept outside except for hanger maintenance but as  XH673 was to be a gate guard I would have expected it to be inhibited from corrosion before it was put in position at Marham and there should have been an on going program of anti-deterioration maintenance to prolong it's life.  As the Victors flew for over a decade after the Vulcans were taken out of service, the breaking up of XH673 is the reason of my concern for the Vulcans.

well we have lost multiple vulcans to corrosion over the years. XA900 and XL391 most notably

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Adam Poultney said:

well we have lost multiple vulcans to corrosion over the years. XA900 and XL391 most notably

The two Vulcans I can think of are XL319 at Blackpool and XM569 at Cardiff.  Both were parked in a salt-rich environment and both suffered from a lack of maintenance.  Other Vulcans, be they gate guardians or “direct to fire dump” airframes including XJ782, XL321, XL386, XL427 and XM657 were all going to have quite short post-retirement life expectancies as the Misery of Disarmament is always looking for a few bob from an understanding scrappy (look at the way the VC-10 fleet was treated, even items like the specialist kit required to get the tailplane off went in the shredder, only for one to be required in order to get XR808 to Cosford by Road what ch then had to be manufactured specially).

 

XH673 went on the gate at Mariam some time (5 yeas I think) before the final withdrawal of the Victor fleet and had been stripped of most, if not all, serviceable kit to help keep the remaining Vctors flying.  As such she was probably accorded a very low priority for maintenance and, allegedly, much of the remaining Victor material went to landfill as soon as the jets were out of service.

Edited by stever219
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weathering on the camouflaged model is....stark. Mention was made of surviving outdoor Vulcans: do any look like that after three or more decades in the weather?

 

Silly as it is to say, given I can finish it however I want, the panel line wash does not make me want to buy that kit. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, k5054nz said:

The weathering on the camouflaged model is....stark. Mention was made of surviving outdoor Vulcans: do any look like that after three or more decades in the weather?

 

Silly as it is to say, given I can finish it however I want, the panel line wash does not make me want to buy that kit. 

 

Models used by manufacturers for promotional stuff should really have no or very little, subtle weathering. Some people feel the biggest weakness of the new Airfix kits is the wider panel lines and Airfix are doing themselves no favours in showing a model which makes them look worse.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Beermonster1958 said:

And, thereby hangs a tale!!

You are right of course.

I simply cannot get round this fad for flooding panel lines with gallons of "wash"!

Is it an age thing? 😉😂.

Why accentuate panel lines on this fashion. Real aeroplanes do not have their panel joints flooded with "washes"! For sure, they do get dirty and worn but, evenly and neatly along their entire lengths?

OK. Its personal choice after all as to how one finishes one's model.

But,  the patchwork quilt looks that are so favoured by many modellers just look (in my opinion anyway) darn silly and unrealistic.

John.

As you say, it's all about choice, and also perspective.

 

To be fair, getting the size and depth of lines right at scale has always been a tricky business and its possible, likely even, that at 72nd these will be large.

 

But many aircraft still have 'lines' - the demarcation between one panel and the next and which has been accentuated by dirt, oil or other factors - and they 'do' show up, quite clearly in many cases and in photos that when reduced in size would be comparable to the scales we use.

 

But its really down to the modeller as to whether they wish to represent these as close to the image of the 'real thing' as they can (for me, in this case, I would go for a much lighter wash for selective panel areas only and aim for a more 'blended' look) or wish to go for something that is simply more pleasing to them.

 

These are after all, personal works of 'art' rather than just assembly, and driven by the imagination of the perception of the creator. There is no right or wrong way. Scale modelling is an art and a hobby and while the manufacturers put in extraordinary efforts to give us high fidelity components, the outputs are governed by imagination rather than doctrine.

 

Every build of this kit will be a 'right' build whether it has faded cammo, heavy lines, bleached panels or massive go-faster stripes with a Rebel Alliance signet. 😊

 

I say to each their own and celebrate each other's choice of how to represent their model. I can't wait to get mine (please Airfix... will you put a pedal on with this...?!? :pray:) and will look to build mine a little rough and faded and will also go for airbrushed edges to the cammo rather than sharp, because that's the look that I like for my models 🙂

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, WV908 said:

597 (and the Comet) should be going inside the current Concorde Hangar once the new hangar for G-BOAA has been built - I believe they have the funding but not the planning permission yet

Not certain about the Comet but the plan for 597 has been shelved. The new hangar is going ahead with, I believe, the current Concorde hangar becoming a Cold War hanger but there is no space for 597.

Not chuffed about this as she needs a lot of TLC based on the last time I was there.

 

V7TO8OL.jpg

7SQn0kf.jpg

B1GyGzD.jpg

BNNaE5O.jpg

obKCuYD.jpg

 

These were taken in 2019.

 

Cheers,

Alistair

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, WV908 said:

 

 I believe they have the funding but not the planning permission yet 

WV908

 

It would be strange to obtain funding and not have planning in place - because, one could be in the unenviable position of having to return or reallocate the funding if the app was denied for any reason - if its part funded by third party grant funding planning is nearly always a prerequisite. I suspect there maybe a pre-app in place, this won't appear on the planning portal, but will  however inform if the development is feasible from a planning persepective.

 

Apologies this is wildy off topic post, but I it was worth a mention before I return to my hole.

 

Tommo,

Edited by The Tomohawk Kid
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2021 at 12:20 PM, Retired Bob said:

Airfix should provide safety ropes so that any lineys working on the aircraft can be pulled out if they accidentally fall into any of them. 🙄

The first kits that I bought that had recessed panel lines were Otaki 1/48th aircraft in the mid 70s, very fine and beautifully done.  Why Airfix cannot recreate that in this age is beyond me!

Cost ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Retired Bob said:

I noticed that XH673 had the outer wing refuelling pods when it was scrapped, I hope they end up at Cosford, their K2 is pod less.

 

Cosford do have the pods for 672 but they were removed as they were a hazard to visitors due to how low they hang. The same goes for the Valiant's main gear doors - they wanted an immersive 'so close you can touch it' experience but the aforementioned items would have restricted this as doubtless someone would have bashed their head on them.

 

Cheers,

  WV908

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, WV908 said:

Cosford do have the pods for 672 but they were removed as they were a hazard to visitors due to how low they hang. The same goes for the Valiant's main gear doors - they wanted an immersive 'so close you can touch it' experience but the aforementioned items would have restricted this as doubtless someone would have bashed their head on them.

I think that's called Darwinism, bashing my head on errant parts of aircraft never did me any harm.  floog ninnng pop, wibble!

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Beermonster1958 without getting political and having some past experience of such things, it’ll come down to ‘planning gain’. If PP is given there will probably be a commitment or requirement to replace the felled trees. Other measures will probably have to be thrown in too, to protect/enhance wildlife to counter the argument about felling mature trees. Maybe also have a wildlife visitor centre on site too?

 

Trevor

 

thread drift over 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Beermonster1958 said:

It's not the museum that is the problem.

The proposed new visitor centre which, would have housed both the Vulcan and, the Comet has been denied planning permissions by the local clowncil.

All because a noisy group of tree huggers got upset that 300 trees would have to be removed to facilitate moving the aircraft to the proposed new building!!

The whole area is awash with trees!! There must be thousands of them and yet.......! If I thought I could get away with it, I'd set fire to them or, chop the wretched things down myself!

The decision to refuse planning permission is under appeal but, we are dealing with a local authority here so, don't expect sense or reason to be involved in the decision making.

 

John

 

 

Planning is a none political process and should be made on a set of strict set of mostly national critera and any convenats that may stretch back hundreds of years - such as the land must remain wooded or only be used for recreational use et al. The local authority is purely the adminstrator of the process, if the  decision was deemed to be made on a political basis it will be overturned at appeal and the costs attributed back to the LA.  A good gauge will be in the planning portal - if the officers recommend approval (possibly with conditions), however the elected members choose to ignore thier recommendation of thier officers and vote otherwise there is a very good chance the decision will overturned at appeal. Everything including minutes is publically visable on the planning portal. If in doubt have look to see what the officers recommended prior to the application going to the council committee and see how the members voted.

 

This is waaaay off topic, but having pretty much having a working life wrapped up in obtaining PP, I thought it was worth a word or two about the process, trying my best to stay clear of the politics, which I have no idea about in this particular case anyway.

 

Tommo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by The Tomohawk Kid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I genuinely and honestly appreciate the concerns around the care of the historical aircraft but... is there any further news about the 'model' of the Vulcan (subject of the thread?)... like, the release date, purchase options etc.? 🙂

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/03/2021 at 14:28, cherry268 said:

Jumblies had it on their site as dispatched on 30/4-21 but  see that has now slipped until 30/6/21

Probably be in time for Telford!!

If it's on

https://www.jumbliesmodels.com/plastic-kits-c3/aviation-kits-c4/airfix-1-72-avro-vulcan-b-2-aircraft-model-kit-p16755

I posted this the other day, not sure if it has changed again

Airfix just says summer

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...