Jump to content

LEAKED New Tool Airfix Vulcan 1/72


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Retired Bob said:

Ahh yes the modern curse, imo.  When I look at models that have been "weathered" to death I just think, have you not looked at any reference photos?

 

Completely agree. I know everyone can build their model how they want but people would have nicer looking models if they just looked at a few photos instead of just doing every model the same. I know some people like to go artistic rather than realistic, but there's a point where it just doesn't look good.¬†And don't get me started on the now fashionable marble pre-shading ūüôĄ¬†....¬†

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whisper this but...

 

I quite like Airfix's panel line treatment because as an aerosol user they look ok to my eyes plus you don't need a wash to bring out the panel lining, it just is there.

 

There is a definite school of modelling which is more interested in showing technique then reflecting reality.  Even in armour modelling it's over done.

I can only imagine the trouble the lineys would get in if most of the modern jets we see represented in RFI were actually presented to the Squadron Commander as serviceable! 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, At Sea said:

I quite like Airfix's panel line treatment because as an aerosol user they look ok to my eyes plus you don't need a wash to bring out the panel lining, it just is there.

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.¬†ūüôĄ

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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.¬†ūüôĄ

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!

 

At risk of drifting off topic I merely pointed out my own opinion, I was not implying the oft criticised representation of panel lines was wrong. ūüôā¬†

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Retired Bob said:

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!

 

Ditto. The Spitfire was what converted me to 1/48 ever since. Although there were inaccuracies in the kit, those panel lines were just a joy to behold!

 

Nick

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, At Sea said:

At risk of drifting off topic I merely pointed out my own opinion, I was not implying the oft criticised representation of panel lines was wrong. ūüôā¬†

Totally agree with you, I nearly used the can of worms emoji.  It's just that with the Vulcan as with their Victor, I look at Airfix's representation of panel lines and my memories (and photos) of working on these beautiful aircraft do not include the overdone panel lines with or without a dark panel line wash, pre-shading or lots of panel edge chipping that will unfortunately be rolled out on RFI pages.

Yes, I do have a stash of the "old" kits, perhaps I should just stick to those, my comments were to point out that fine, engraved lines were out there almost 50 years ago and it's unlikely that anybody else will now make 1/72nd V bombers.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Retired Bob said:

 

Yes, I do have a stash of the "old" kits, perhaps I should just stick to those, my comments were to point out that fine, engraved lines were out there almost 50 years ago and it's unlikely that anybody else will now make 1/72nd V bombers.

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

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 ūüėā

 

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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
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 ‚Äúdirect to fire dump‚ÄĚ 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 post
Share on other sites
Just now, stever219 said:

The two Vulcans I can think of are XL361 at Blackpool 

361 is the Goose Bay one

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Adam Poultney said:

361 is the Goose Bay one

Sorry, fat fingers & leaky memory, XL319, original post corrected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours 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....

I don't quite understand all the silly excuses as to why the earlier marks should NOT be produced.

A Vulcan B1/B1A (for example) is still a Vulcan after all.

It's funny how,in comparison, whenever a kit of a really boring,   done to death already aircraft like the Spitfire is announced, there is an immediate chorus of "we now need a Mk.. .. .. . (insert). It seems to matter not that it might be a relatively obscure variant, with only a handful built that served for only a year with two squadrons....!

 

If its good enough for Spitfires (ūüėīūüėīūüėīūüėī), it's good enough for the V bombers ūüėČūüėā

John

  • Like 1
Link to post
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 post
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 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 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. 

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? ūüėČūüėā.

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.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Tbolt said:

.¬†And don't get me started on the now fashionable marble pre-shading ūüôĄ¬†....¬†

ūüĎć. I was just wondering how many real aeroplanes get "pre shaded"?

I'd guess none at all so, I do share your doubts about the current fad for "pre shading" !

I have to say that the camouflaged model illustrated looks faintly ridiculous after what must have been immersion in a basin of panel line wash! ūüėē

 

John

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Beermonster1958
  • Like 5
Link to post
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? ūüėČūüėā.

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. ūüėä

 

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 ūüôā

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nocoolname said:

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. ūüėä

 

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 ūüôā

No argument here. As long as people are happy with their models, I guess everything else is moot!.

Be very boring if we all agreed with each other!!

 

John ( seriously considering the smart, clean, pristine "raspberry ripple"¬† colour scheme look! ūüėČūüėā

 

Link to post
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...