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

[Willi3d]

On 9/20/2023 at 1:18 PM, NavyWessex said:

A correction sheet has been posted over on Facebook which appears to originate from Airfix themselves...

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/525940410763387/permalink/7051873661503330/

Can anyone post the correction?  Looks like you have to be a member of that FB group to see it.

[71chally]

4 hours ago, Willi3d said:

Can anyone post the correction?  Looks like you have to be a member of that FB group to see it.

 

...isn't it just this?

 

On 9/16/2023 at 3:11 PM, 71chally said:

...the good news is that the right bits are there in the box to work with. 

The correct ECM pylon is the long bit, all you need to do is to cut away that deep 'adapter' section that I've marked in red here, and attach the ECM pod directly to the pylon.

Airfix Vulcan Black Buck pylon issue by James Thomas, on Flickr

 

 

It looks like the kit Shrike pylons are the same size as each other, the stb'd one was noticeably shallower than the port one in reality.

Edited September 22, 2023 by 71chally

[Adam Poultney]

15 minutes ago, 71chally said:

It looks like the kit Shrike pylons are the same size as each other, the stb'd one was noticeably shallower than the port one in reality.

I totally missed that, focusing on the AQL101 pylon!

Looks like the best thing to do with this kit is not build a Black Buck Vulcan! Aftermarket decals, build another scheme and enjoy the better plastic than the first version. 

[Rabbit Leader]

So are there any good drawings to highlight what the correct pylons should look like for either Shrike or ECM pod fitment? 
 

Cheers.. Dave 

[klr]

1 hour ago, 71chally said:

 

...

 

It looks like the kit Shrike pylons are the same size as each other, the stb'd one was noticeably shallower than the port one in reality.

From memory (and viewing available instructions on Scalemates), Airfix got this correct with the original 1983 Vulcan kit. So, if you have one of those in the stash, or have the pylons left over from building it as another subject ... 😂

 

EDIT: I also suspect those older pylon parts were more accurate and realistic, even leaving the asymmetric depth issue aside.

Edited September 22, 2023 by klr

[71chally]

26 minutes ago, Rabbit Leader said:

So are there any good drawings to highlight what the correct pylons should look like for either Shrike or ECM pod fitment? 

I'm unaware of any drawings of the pylons, certainly beyond the kit drawings of both Vulcan kits.

However there are three preserved Vulcans (at East Fortune, Cosford & Waddington) with the pylons attached, and another set of pylons that were/are on display at Flixton.

 

Have to concur with above comments, the original Vulcan kit had better representations of the pylons, and the Dash 10/ECM pod in both the old and the new Airfix Buccaneer kits is far superior to this 'shape'.

I honestly don't know what Airfix were thinking here, could the 'Black Buck' parts been farmed out to another company?

[tony.t]

In US service the dual Shrike adapter units were handed: ADU-315/A right wing and ADU-316/A left IIRC, with the launch rails staggered to deconflict the missiles' steering fins. The kit ones are the same for both wings, but that may have been true on the Vulcan (?)

 

Tony

[MattB17]

19 hours ago, Willi3d said:

Can anyone post the correction?  Looks like you have to be a member of that FB group to see it.

 

No skin in the game on this, but here's said correction sheet:

[amos brierley]

I’ve just been cross referencing the Black Buck instructions with those of the standard Vulcan kit, I wanted to see what differences Airfix has made. What a shockingly bad surprise I’ve stumbled across, it appears Airfix have only concentrated on the weapons and decal sheet. In the box Airfix supplies all of the bits and pieces for multiple options, sadly they’ve completely ignored common sense and the vast wisdom that surrounds the Black Buck A/C. I’m now going to have to contact Airfix and see what they have to say because this whole box release appears to be sinking further into the mire, come S.M.W 2023 and I can see myself giving the people at the Airfix trade stand a lambasting, both barrels. This kit is now looking like a lot of a lemon.  😬

[cherisy]

1 hour ago, amos brierley said:

I’ve just been cross referencing the Black Buck instructions with those of the standard Vulcan kit, I wanted to see what differences Airfix has made. What a shockingly bad surprise I’ve stumbled across, it appears Airfix have only concentrated on the weapons and decal sheet. In the box Airfix supplies all of the bits and pieces for multiple options, sadly they’ve completely ignored common sense and the vast wisdom that surrounds the Black Buck A/C. I’m now going to have to contact Airfix and see what they have to say because this whole box release appears to be sinking further into the mire, come S.M.W 2023 and I can see myself giving the people at the Airfix trade stand a lambasting, both barrels. This kit is now looking like a lot of a lemon.  😬

I think that Airfix are rather  hoping this one will go away.

[Adam Poultney]

 

1 hour ago, amos brierley said:

I’m now going to have to contact Airfix and see what they have to say because this whole box release appears to be sinking further into the mire, come S.M.W 2023 and I can see myself giving the people at the Airfix trade stand a lambasting, both barrels. This kit is now looking like a lot of a lemon.  😬

We can only hope to see a fully retooled black buck sprue one day... pretty much all the parts are wrong in some way or another and it's omitted the nose vortex generators. 

 

The rest of the kit is riddled with less noticeable but similar errors. Missing vents, missing details from the landing gear, integrally moulded supports on the landing gear only fitted to stored aircraft, missing windscreen wiper, missing gas struts from the crew door.... need I go on?

 

A lot of these errors can be traced to a single, faulty source. The pylon photo, a preserved aircraft with bits missing for restoration work, etc. It's like Airfix are just copying what they see, but don't know what any of it is or what it does. 

Edited September 27, 2023 by Adam Poultney

[Jeepboy]

...  I guess someone at Airfix has had a meeting with senior management without coffee about this 😒

[Stuondrums]

2 hours ago, amos brierley said:

I’ve just been cross referencing the Black Buck instructions with those of the standard Vulcan kit, I wanted to see what differences Airfix has made. What a shockingly bad surprise I’ve stumbled across, it appears Airfix have only concentrated on the weapons and decal sheet. In the box Airfix supplies all of the bits and pieces for multiple options, sadly they’ve completely ignored common sense and the vast wisdom that surrounds the Black Buck A/C. I’m now going to have to contact Airfix and see what they have to say because this whole box release appears to be sinking further into the mire, come S.M.W 2023 and I can see myself giving the people at the Airfix trade stand a lambasting, both barrels. This kit is now looking like a lot of a lemon.  😬

Yes, you tell those filthy swines at Airfix. 

[71chally]

12 hours ago, Adam Poultney said:

It's like Airfix are just copying what they see, but don't know what any of it is or what it does. 

That really sums things up nicely I reckon Adam, and quite odd for current Airfix standards.

 

 

[amos brierley]

And another thing……… (as Jeremy Clarkson used to say.) 

 

12 hours ago, Stuondrums said:

Yes, you tell those filthy swines at Airfix.

About ten years ago whilst in a mood about something at S.M.W , the Airfix Victor may have been released and I was frustrated at the lack of a new Vulcan, I felt the need to ‘gob off’ about the old Vulcan…….

 

Here’s roughly what I said ‘oy mush’  what kind of company thinks making a model kit of a bomber aircraft that has a bomb bay , so, how can you justify this nonsense that is 30+ years old that doesn’t come with a bomb bay  let alone the supposed Falklands war details ………..      (hopefully I’ve not offended anyone).   😉

[224 Peter]

Airfix research people make mistakes because they are young people who are not really interested in (or don't really care about) the subject from the perspective of historical accuracy. 

We older people have the interest and were around to see the subjects in their real world, back in the 60s and 70s.

Museum specimens are a dangerous reference as they have all sorts of changes to make them suitable as exhibits. In my view only examples capable of flight should be used, and even then backed up by photographic evidence.  

 

[sniperUK]

26 minutes ago, 224 Peter said:

Airfix research people make mistakes because they are young people who are not really interested in (or don't really care about) the subject from the perspective of historical accuracy. 

We older people have the interest and were around to see the subjects in their real world, back in the 60s and 70s.

Museum specimens are a dangerous reference as they have all sorts of changes to make them suitable as exhibits. In my view only examples capable of flight should be used, and even then backed up by photographic evidence.  

 

 

What a load of ball cocks, you obviously don't know any of the team or their passion for the work they do, I would happily put the current Airfix research team, and their contacts above any other major model company. And yes I have helped them with research and access to aircraft on a few occasions. 

[71chally]

@224 Peter I absolutely can not agree with that statement, yes some are younger, but many of them are passionate about the subject they are creating and bringing us.  

Just watch the blogs about the Sea King and Gannet releases by their creators and it's immediately evident that they are interested and passionate, and they also engage subject specialists. 

I really don't know what age has to with anything, you meet interested young people and disinterested older people and vice versa.

[Adam Poultney]

49 minutes ago, 224 Peter said:

Airfix research people make mistakes because they are young people who are not really interested in (or don't really care about) the subject from the perspective of historical accuracy. 

We older people have the interest and were around to see the subjects in their real world, back in the 60s and 70s.

What a bad take. Stop with the young people bad mindset.

Do you think I know a lot about Vulcans? Maybe I'm a bit interested in them? Maybe I care a little about historical accuracy. Did you realise I'm just 20? Two. Zero. Twenty. 

Would you trust me to be on the design team for a Vulcan kit? 

You need a design team with passion, not aching joints! 20 or 70, they can have passion for a hobby. 
 

And people wonder why scale modelling is an aging hobby... 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Adam Poultney

[Parrahs]

47 minutes ago, 224 Peter said:

who are not really interested in (or don't really care about)

 

Indulging passionate interest tends to take time. Keeping your job means meeting deadlines.

[Adam Poultney]

51 minutes ago, 224 Peter said:

Museum specimens are a dangerous reference as they have all sorts of changes to make them suitable as exhibits. In my view only examples capable of flight should be used, and even then backed up by photographic evidence.  

A bad take also! If age really made you know so much for historic accuracy, you might realise that flying examples often aren't fully original, as regulations may demand certain changes to be able to fly, or restorations may make use of what exists not what was historically rivet count accurate. 

XH558 certainly was not representative of a service Vulcan while flying displays! The Blenheim that is airworthy is actually a Bolingbroke with a Blenheim Mk.1 nose! There are loads of similar examples of compromises made to keep things flying. 

 

The best way for accuracy is a combination of many research methods. Museum exhibits, airworthy aircraft, photos, drawings, documentation and more. But you've got to understand what you're looking at

[Graham Boak]

Everyone makes mistakes, but the mistakes made do show a lack of detailed knowledge.  This knowledge is more common among older people simply because they have been around and interested in their subject for longer.  Someone who is given a project for a subject that is almost invariably  little known to them cannot be expected to catch faults in their references however immersed and enthusiastic they may become.   Older enthusiasts spot these things not because they are brighter or more enthusiastic, but they have had more opportunities to learn.  Given that pretty well everyone involved in kit manufacture is younger than me, it is perhaps better to ask why some of the current manufacturers like Eduard or Arma Hobby make less mistakes than those from Airfix.

 

Two postings have come in while I was typing that I think relevant: one is deadlines, and the other is relying upon a wide range of references.  Both are linked to time, something older enthusiasts have in the bank.

[Dave Fleming]

12 minutes ago, Parrahs said:

 

Indulging passionate interest tends to take time. Keeping your job means meeting deadlines.

And budgets. There comes a point where you have to draw the line.

[JohnT]

I might be a tad odd here but I actually find it interesting that Airfix got it quite as wrong as they did.  It is an insight into how things work or don't work and where even skilled persons can make bloopers.  I suspect its down to human frailties.  I doubt making a lash up of something is more prone to one group than another whether that be by age, gender, or any other category one can or can't mention these days.  

 

That said given the expertise that is available from forums like this one I am surprised that manufacturers don't avail themselves of it more often than they do  Often good advice and information is freely given but a thank you noted on the box and a dozen free kits would not hurt I dare say.

 

Still it gives us something to write about.

 

By the way I was soooooo disappointed when I eventually found out aged 16 that The Millie "P" as I misread her wasn't painted red at all as my 11 year old had so admired.  Ah well....... 

[RobertF]

Guys, don't you think this discussion has gone a bit off tangent by now?