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

[NavyWessex]

26 minutes ago, tony.t said:

 

As the correct interpretation of underwing pylons & stores is the raison d'etre of the Black Buck edition then, yes, it's fairly fundamental. It makes me wonder what else is wrong.

 

And yes, you're right, if ResKit tackle the pylons and stores they will doubtless lift the end result up a few notches. 

 

Tony 

 

I'm pretty sure I read at the time of the original new tooled boxing release, that the kit was representative of a museum airframe. It omits the central windscreen wiper and also the compression on the landing gear reflects a collapsed oleo as found in museum pieces. I'm happy to stand corrected, but if that's the case, then there are evidently gaps in research for this particular tooling.

 

Whilst some would say I'm rivet counting ah 90% of modellers will not know this, if the kit represents an in service airframe, then that's what I'd expect in the box.

[SleeperService]

I think that this is getting a little overblown. Casual buyers will be happy, enthusiasts will be as likely to upgrade parts even when there is no real improvement.

A replacement undercarriage in brass will be around for those who take models to shows and such. Reskit or similar will offer enhanced detail sets and a bit of work to deal with other items gives you a very good model for, frankly not a lot per hour. The kit is usually just the starting point and, TBH even at the new price is pretty good value for money, even the decal sheets are well drawn and printed.

I work in 48th and the new Airfix Sea King is a galaxy better than the overpriced Hasegawa offering that then needs serious time and effort to add stuff that they have simply missed. The decal sheets are usually questionable adding aftermarket stencils is almost mandatory at least.

That said if they offer the Vulcan in 1/48 I'd stretch my area of interest to include it.

Sloppy research can be extremely annoying doubly so as it should be checked as part of the design process. It isn't limited to model kits.

[tony.t]

20 hours ago, SleeperService said:

...

A replacement undercarriage in brass will be around for those who take models to shows and such. ...

Sloppy research can be extremely annoying doubly so as it should be checked as part of the design process. It isn't limited to model kits.

 

SleeperService, is that Aerocraft? If so, that's great news. I am assuming this might correct the suggested over-compressed oleos (?) Or a similar firm (as long as it's not SAC).

 

I seldom buy 1/72 but the Vulcan was a must-have in the absence of a 1/48 edition. 

 

Tony 

 

 

.

Edited September 15, 2023 by tony.t
broadening parameters

[NAVY870]

What bothers me is what a miserable bunch modellers are rapidly becoming.

Ignore the good but P&M over anything error no matter how large or small.

 

I think I shall buy one purely to deliberately and maliciously enjoy building it.

 

[Adam Poultney]

12 minutes ago, NAVY870 said:

What bothers me is what a miserable bunch modellers are rapidly becoming.

Ignore the good but P&M over anything error no matter how large or small.

 

I think I shall buy one purely to deliberately and maliciously enjoy building it.

 

Airfix charge a premium for their kits. I think we can expect said kits to be free of such catastrophic blunders.

 

This isn't a misplaced rivet. Nor even a real and accurate minor detail just from the wrong variant. That is more than excusable, and shouldn't really be of any major concern to Airfix. This is getting the defining feature of the kit completely wrong, in a way that is frankly baffling and should be easy to avoid with even the slightest research. 

There is one source that this could have come from: a single image that is easily misinterpreted at a glance. They can't have found a second source, looked at the real thing, or based the part on technical documentation because it simply doesn't exist. There are many easily accessible sources to the contrary. 

This, to me at least, totally discredits Airfix's image as a company that researches its kits thoroughly. And I'm sorry to the researchers and designers at Airfix who do get it right, and they really do a great job most of the time, but the company's image is only as strong as its weakest kit. 

 

If Airfix want to charge over 70 quid for a kit, a price that demands a certain quality,  I think we have somewhat of a right to complain about such a prominent error. 

[peterburns]

2 hours ago, Adam Poultney said:

Airfix charge a premium for their kits. I think we can expect said kits to be free of such catastrophic blunders.

 

This isn't a misplaced rivet. Nor even a real and accurate minor detail just from the wrong variant. That is more than excusable, and shouldn't really be of any major concern to Airfix. This is getting the defining feature of the kit completely wrong, in a way that is frankly baffling and should be easy to avoid with even the slightest research. 

There is one source that this could have come from: a single image that is easily misinterpreted at a glance. They can't have found a second source, looked at the real thing, or based the part on technical documentation because it simply doesn't exist. There are many easily accessible sources to the contrary. 

This, to me at least, totally discredits Airfix's image as a company that researches its kits thoroughly. And I'm sorry to the researchers and designers at Airfix who do get it right, and they really do a great job most of the time, but the company's image is only as strong as its weakest kit. 

 

If Airfix want to charge over 70 quid for a kit, a price that demands a certain quality,  I think we have somewhat of a right to complain about such a prominent error. 

It's a ridiculous mistake, and one I never thought Airfix would make, but it's hardly catastrophic.  

[NAVY870]

2 hours ago, Adam Poultney said:

Airfix charge a premium for their kits. I think we can expect said kits to be free of such catastrophic blunders.

 

This isn't a misplaced rivet. Nor even a real and accurate minor detail just from the wrong variant. That is more than excusable, and shouldn't really be of any major concern to Airfix. This is getting the defining feature of the kit completely wrong, in a way that is frankly baffling and should be easy to avoid with even the slightest research. 

There is one source that this could have come from: a single image that is easily misinterpreted at a glance. They can't have found a second source, looked at the real thing, or based the part on technical documentation because it simply doesn't exist. There are many easily accessible sources to the contrary. 

This, to me at least, totally discredits Airfix's image as a company that researches its kits thoroughly. And I'm sorry to the researchers and designers at Airfix who do get it right, and they really do a great job most of the time, but the company's image is only as strong as its weakest kit. 

 

If Airfix want to charge over 70 quid for a kit, a price that demands a certain quality,  I think we have somewhat of a right to complain about such a prominent error. 

I thank the member for proving my point so eloquently.

[jenko]

2 hours ago, peterburns said:

It's a ridiculous mistake, and one I never thought Airfix would make, but it's hardly catastrophic.  

 

Totally agree and well put.

 

The same happened with the Seafire 17. They took one photo and took it as gospel. Another half an hour on the internet would have reached a different conclusion.

 

At the end of the day these are school boy errors that should not happen at this level.

More haste less speed Airfix.

 

Dick

 

If we didn't care we would not be like this. 

[stevehnz]

4 hours ago, jenko said:

The same happened with the Seafire 17. They took one photo and took it as gospel. Another half an hour on the internet would have reached a different conclusion.

Care to enlarge on this. I went looking & found the photo with HMS Cadiz in the background & the only thing I could spot was a maybe white/silver spinner backing plate & possibly a different coloured spinner but given the image size & lighting, I was far from convinced on that.

Steve.

[petetasker]

11 hours ago, NAVY870 said:

What bothers me is what a miserable bunch modellers are rapidly becoming.

Ignore the good but P&M over anything error no matter how large or small.

 

I think I shall buy one purely to deliberately and maliciously enjoy building it.

 

Agree entirely. It’s hardly the end of the world and looks easily fixable. Probably not the first time it’s happened and no doubt not the last. I’ve seen a few Black Buck paintings featuring the same mistake. A silly error by Airfix but it does seem as if some are trying to make it into a really big deal.

[AntPhillips]

As others have said, cock ups happen, and although this error is not unique to Airfix, as others have misinterpreted the same photo and whilst die hard Vulcan fans might know this, I suspect the Airfix researcher didn't.

 

That said it's hardly a life or death situation, and if you think it is then you need to step away from the bench and those glue vapours and take your self for a breath of fresh air.

 

[jenko]

1 hour ago, stevehnz said:

Care to enlarge on this. I went looking & found the photo with HMS Cadiz in the background & the only thing I could spot was a maybe white/silver spinner backing plate & possibly a different coloured spinner but given the image size & lighting, I was far from convinced on that.

Steve.

Steve. It is ment to be EDSG/Dark Slate grey over Sky. My late father was an airframe fitter with 807 on this cruise.  So I got the info first hand when Airfix first brought the kit out. The image you speak of being black and white will have a filter used so the demarcation is more vague.

 

Dick 

[tomprobert]

I don't often get involved in discussions of this nature, but have we actually seen the plastic yet?

 

The photos on the FB page don't look quite right to me. The gear doors appear to be on the inner rather than outer side of the bay, and there's something seriously up with the gear legs in the images I'm seeing... is it not possible that these are digitally enhanced images and not the kit itself? I suspect that someone has been asked to make/modify the art work and renders who is not perhaps up to speed, and therefore we are seeing the errors in the pictures. I'd be most surprised if Airfix have ballsed-up the plastic itself - although every kit manufacturer makes errors here and there I know for sure that there were some extremely competent folks involved in the development of the Vulcan. I'd say wait until we see the parts themselves before flaming Airfix - and if they have got it wrong then flame away!

 

Tom

[March]

I do the idea of the outline of that chaps elbow having been immortalised in plastic.

 

Airfix’s blunder aside, in the plus column, this boxing contains the darker and more importantly harder plastic Airfix have been using for recent releases. I got coin 229 with mine.

Edited September 15, 2023 by March

[VMA131Marine]

13 hours ago, Adam Poultney said:

Airfix charge a premium for their kits. I think we can expect said kits to be free of such catastrophic blunders.

 

This isn't a misplaced rivet. Nor even a real and accurate minor detail just from the wrong variant. That is more than excusable, and shouldn't really be of any major concern to Airfix. This is getting the defining feature of the kit completely wrong, in a way that is frankly baffling and should be easy to avoid with even the slightest research. 

There is one source that this could have come from: a single image that is easily misinterpreted at a glance. They can't have found a second source, looked at the real thing, or based the part on technical documentation because it simply doesn't exist. There are many easily accessible sources to the contrary. 

This, to me at least, totally discredits Airfix's image as a company that researches its kits thoroughly. And I'm sorry to the researchers and designers at Airfix who do get it right, and they really do a great job most of the time, but the company's image is only as strong as its weakest kit. 

 

If Airfix want to charge over 70 quid for a kit, a price that demands a certain quality,  I think we have somewhat of a right to complain about such a prominent error. 

This is satire? Right?

[tony.t]

2 hours ago, March said:

I do the idea of the outline of that chaps elbow having been immortalised in plastic.

 

Airfix’s blunder aside, in the plus column, this boxing contains the darker and more importantly harder plastic Airfix have been using for recent releases. I got coin 229 with mine.

 

The harder plastic might convince me I can justify a second Vulcan (duff pylons or not) to build right away as a regular peacetime bomber. 

 

2 hours ago, VMA131Marine said:

This is satire? Right?

 

He's got a point. Those of us interested in the Vulcan already have one. Apart from the harder plastic, what exactly is the pull of this new boxing to entice us into buying another if it's not the Black Buck gubbins?

 

Tony

 

 

[alt-92]

5 hours ago, tomprobert said:

is it not possible that these are digitally enhanced images and not the kit itself?

The released image seems to be a render - but they do incorporate the pylon of doom on the profile on the website too, so....

[Mr T]

I think part of the problem is that, at least in the UK, the Hornby Group has had a shedload of essentially free publicity in a TV series. The marketing manager of Hornby was prominent in this series, and made great play about the accuracy of its products. 

 

[cherisy]

It seems someone  already has their kit from somewhere and have posted sprue shots on a modellers group on Facebook. 

The pylon of doom really is in the kit and is molded in one part which includes the spurious door/pylon including the cut out where the techies head went. Oh dear oh dear.

[Stuart91]

I have recieved my boxing of the kit today, limited edition one with the coin direct from Airfix, number 312/500. I have read all the comments on here about the pylons and yes the jammer pod pylon is clearly incorrect. I wanted to reserve full judgement until I saw it in person for myself 

 

It appears you can recreate XM597 pretty accurately but the ALQ101 pod carried by XM607 has been moulded in one piece with the wrong extension pylon and connected to the actual underwing pylon, again all in one peice and not seperate like the shrike missile mounts. It looks like it can be cut away easily but I will also say that the pod itself has zero detail on it aswell as do the shrike missles. There's not any recessed lines or rivets, just a solid piece of plastic. In my opinion I don't think the extra cost of this kit is worth it (even though I have one now, and willingly bought it) I had really hoped the black buck parts would be as detailed as the kit iteslf.

 

I'm sure aftermarket firms will produce something better like ResKit did with the jammer pod. The pylons and equipment will need a fair amount of work out of the box to bring it up to the standard of the rest of the kit.

 

A real oversight on Airfix's part and the lack of detail is disappointing. It may be best to buy the original kit at it's now discounted price and wait for an aftermarket company to reproduce better pylons etc. 

 

However, on the plus side the plastic appears to be the harder and darker moulding instead of the lighter and softer plastic of the original kit from 2021. With a bit of work and reference photos it can be made into something great and the box art looks pretty emphatic too. On the whole not great but not a disaster by any stretch. Just a shame the ecm pod was moulded in one piece with the pylon and 'funny' extension...

 

[Adam Poultney]

This honestly all sounds like Airfix have contracted this out or something... it's totally out of character for them and not at all up to their standards

[cherisy]

8 minutes ago, Adam Poultney said:

This honestly all sounds like Airfix have contracted this out or something... it's totally out of character for them and not at all up to their standards

Sounds like you are right. I cant help but feel it will come back to bite them on the backside

[Stuart91]

12 minutes ago, Stuart91 said:

I have recieved my boxing of the kit today, limited edition one with the coin direct from Airfix, number 312/500. I have read all the comments on here about the pylons and yes the jammer pod pylon is clearly incorrect. I wanted to reserve full judgement until I saw it in person for myself 

 

It appears you can recreate XM597 pretty accurately but the ALQ101 pod carried by XM607 has been moulded in one piece with the wrong extension pylon and connected to the actual underwing pylon, again all in one peice and not seperate like the shrike missile mounts. It looks like it can be cut away easily but I will also say that the pod itself has zero detail on it aswell as do the shrike missles. There's not any recessed lines or rivets, just a solid piece of plastic. In my opinion I don't think the extra cost of this kit is worth it (even though I have one now, and willingly bought it) I had really hoped the black buck parts would be as detailed as the kit iteslf.

 

I'm sure aftermarket firms will produce something better like ResKit did with the jammer pod. The pylons and equipment will need a fair amount of work out of the box to bring it up to the standard of the rest of the kit.

 

A real oversight on Airfix's part and the lack of detail is disappointing. It may be best to buy the original kit at it's now discounted price and wait for an aftermarket company to reproduce better pylons etc. 

 

However, on the plus side the plastic appears to be the harder and darker moulding instead of the lighter and softer plastic of the original kit from 2021. With a bit of work and reference photos it can be made into something great and the box art looks pretty emphatic too. On the whole not great but not a disaster by any stretch. Just a shame the ecm pod was moulded in one piece with the pylon and 'funny' extension...

 

I would post photos of it here, but i'm not sure how to and it's asking for a URL link.... I also don't normally open the plastic bags of my kits until I build them but in this case I couldn't help it!  😂

[cherisy]

Being cynical does anyone think the coin they are giving away as part of the bundle is an afterthought  andc a smoke screen once they realised the mistake with the kit ?. 

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the meeting where the first kit showed up for inspection.

[Stuart91]

1 minute ago, cherisy said:

Being cynical does anyone think the coin they are giving away as part of the bundle is an afterthought  andc a smoke screen once they realised the mistake with the kit ?. 

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the meeting where the first kit showed up for inspection.

I genuinely can't believe how it even got past the first inspection and a CAD drawing or a render, let alone approved and actually moulded then released! 😂 Quite the oversight! Plus i'm guessing they were only using that one photo that's doing the rounds as their reference... 5 mins on a google search was all it would have taken to confirm it was incorrect 😆