1/72 - Supermarine Spitfire Mk.Vc by Airfix - released

[fightersweep]

Just now, wombat said:

If by chance you do, the Mary decal alone would be great as I have the Academy kit in the stash. Though quite a well documented airframe I can’t find an aftermarket decal of it.

You can certainly have the decals! I tried having a go at the Sword Spit, but settled for the Academy kit instead. It was a lot less hassle and a nice little kit. Drop me a pm, and we'll sort the decals out.

 

Steve

[Wez]

On 03/04/2020 at 15:01, MACALAIN said:

Where is the hole of the fuselage fuel tank and cap ?

 

Best regard

 

Alain

The Airfix article said:

 

"Although we would usually show first built sample images from a new model tooling a couple of editions after revealing the first frame parts, we have so much information to bring you in 2020 that we thought we would give you all a little Spitfire treat. Please note that these images feature the first test build from the first test components and are still subject to change before the tooling can be released for production"

 

So I suggest you get onto them and point this detail out.  I expect the kit may be based upon the Shuttleworth Spitfire Vc which may not have this feature.

 

11 hours ago, Denford said:

I interpret this as taking the younger\new modeller into consideration.  Likewise the tailplane fixings are 'handed'.  And an open canopy (even if a little and unavoidably overscale): cockpit detail (a little overscale) too!

Airfix are clearly trying to tempt people into modelling starting with their 'easy to assemble' cars.  What better follow on than with a Spitfire that is universally known, easy to build and shows good detail even if a little artistic licence is taken?  No kit can be 'all things to all men' but this comes close and I hope they sell lots of them.

For the true modeller, unsurprisingly, we get alternative props and exhausts.  And alternative oil coolers on the 'South West' sprue?  We should be grateful.

No Aboukier filter (not difficult for the aftermarket), but then I never really expected one.

And uncompromisingly an Vc.  No evidence of 'follow on' Vb, Xll, Seafire or anything else.

Still no evidence of a rear view mirror, and as you say wheel covers need to be slightly bulged, but it's still early days.  They say that Airfix read BM postings....

Lastly, though it should be first, thank you Airfix for posting details.

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head, first and foremost Airfix kits are aimed at newcomers to the hobby, brush painting with their own brand of paints, this is why they lack the finesse of kits aimed fairly and squarely at the experienced modeller.

[RidgeRunner]

1 hour ago, Wez said:

I interpret this as taking the younger\new modeller into consideration.

 

1 hour ago, Wez said:

I think you've hit the nail on the head, first and foremost Airfix kits are aimed at newcomers to the hobby, brush painting with their own brand of paints, this is why they lack the finesse of kits aimed fairly and squarely at the experienced modeller.

We all had to start somewhere mate and, I'm sure I not alone, I built many such kits in the past.

 I just need to get myself a KP Vb

M

Edited April 5, 2020 by RidgeRunner

[Acinonyx Jubatus]

39 minutes ago, Wez said:

The Airfix article said:

 

"Although we would usually show first built sample images from a new model tooling a couple of editions after revealing the first frame parts, we have so much information to bring you in 2020 that we thought we would give you all a little Spitfire treat. Please note that these images feature the first test build from the first test components and are still subject to change before the tooling can be released for production"

 

So I suggest you get onto them and point this detail out.  I expect the kit may be based upon the Shuttleworth Spitfire Vc which may not have this feature.

 

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head, first and foremost Airfix kits are aimed at newcomers to the hobby, brush painting with their own brand of paints, this is why they lack the finesse of kits aimed fairly and squarely at the experienced modeller.

Does this mean that newcomers to the hobby are expected to put up with short shots such as the Hawker Sea Fury tail surfaces ? 

I recently bought the Airfix 1/72 P51D, a cheap kit aimed at the newcomer, on opening the bags and inspecting the sprues I found that the main gear legs where bent into near U-bend shapes, a quick search of the internet suggests I am not alone in finding this fault in this kit.

Should newcomers be expected to put up with poor quality such as this ?

Having bought an Airfix kit with such faults would they go out and spend their cash on another poor quality kit, or possibly search the internet and discover who is producing good quality kits and buy one of those instead 

Current Airfix products, with some notable exceptions, remind me of the British car industry in the 1970s, poorly designed, poorly executed, using poor quality materials and lagging behind quality products from overseas, and we all know how that ended up.

[Graham Boak]

If you think this model or the P-51 are directed at the newcomer, then can I ask who the parallel introduction of a simpler Mk.Vc is aimed at?  Possibly experienced modellers as only they can be capable of making a decent hack at it?

 

Have you never had faulty parts in kits from any other manufacturer?

 

But then there's nothing wrong with the u/c legs on my P-51, so I might be biased.  But then I do have a Weekend (ha!) boxing of the Eduard Spitfire Mk.VIII that lacks the wide cannon blisters needed for one of the options provided.  Shock!  Horror!  Gasp!  Totally unworkable!  Just who do Eduard think they are?

[Wez]

41 minutes ago, Acinonyx Jubatus said:

Does this mean that newcomers to the hobby are expected to put up with short shots such as the Hawker Sea Fury tail surfaces ? 

I recently bought the Airfix 1/72 P51D, a cheap kit aimed at the newcomer, on opening the bags and inspecting the sprues I found that the main gear legs where bent into near U-bend shapes, a quick search of the internet suggests I am not alone in finding this fault in this kit.

Should newcomers be expected to put up with poor quality such as this ?

Having bought an Airfix kit with such faults would they go out and spend their cash on another poor quality kit, or possibly search the internet and discover who is producing good quality kits and buy one of those instead

No, you're absolutely right, they shouldn't have to put up with short shots and I absolutely agree with you, nobody should have to put up with poor quality but that wasn't the point of my post, the comment I was posting on was commenting on the respective finesse of the kit and not the quality of the production.

 

I too would expect people to be put off by poorly moulded kits, I had such a short shot kit from Dragon, it put me off of their kits for a while too.

[alt-92]

By sheer coincidence, Paramjit (yes, the Airfix Paramjit) joined in on a Flory live show this week and gave some insights in the design & production flow @ Airfix.

May be worth a gander.

They are aware of QA issues and seem to spend effort to fix that asap.
Besides, he seems a nice guy with sufficient modelling background.

[Giorgio N]

Sorry but I don't buy the "Airfix aims at beginners" explanation. The Hobbyboss easy-kits are aimed at beginners and mostly they have a mould quality better than many recent 1/72 Airfix kits. They have very little detail but what little is there is often better moulded.

Even the good old Matchbox could offer parts that while very little detailed were sharply moulded and they could make bulkheads of reasonable thickness, and their kits sure had beginners in mind.

Besides, have Airfix ever stated that they believe beginners to prefer moulds with little finesse and that this is a deliberate choice? And do beginners really like this?

I don't have any insight in the company but if I had to bet I'd say that the reason is simply a financial one: given the resources they can allocate, their business structure and their market this is what they can offer while making the desired profit for a set RRP. That is a perfectly fine choice as long as the market support this. 

This is of course only my view but I'd bet it's closer to the truth than others.. 

 

[MACALAIN]

Are there still beginners and young modelers ? In Belgium, not a lot, "young" from 50+ year old !

 

Alain

[Denford]

I never said that the kit should be seen as for 'Beginners'. 

 

'Entry level' might be a better phrase, for those who have enjoyed building their Airfix 'Easy to Build' cars and would like to move on.  The Spitfire is, and I hate to use the word, 'Iconic', but known by all around the world and so an obvious follow-on choice. 

 

The fact that many of buyers probably couldn't tell a Spitfire from a Hurricane matters not.  The object is to sell kits: nothing else.

 

Yet clearly Airfix cannot ignore the serious modeler who is probably only a small proportion of the buyers.  So there has to be a compromise of not-too difficult build (the arrangement of full span and clipped wings) and a reasonable level of detail albeit with some slight compromises.

 

Talk in earlier postings of short shots, missing parts aren't specific to this kit.

 

Yes, there are others who offer 'quick build' aimed, one presumes, at largely at beginners.  The fact that Matchbox for example offer simple kits is no reason for Airfix not to do so.

 

[Meatbox8]

Very much looking forward to this release.  The 90 gallon slipper tank in the bottom left sprue suggests a Malta release at some point I would imagine.  I think it looks pretty nice altjough I am a bit surprised that the large canon bulges are not separate parts.  Somewhat limits the range of real aircraft the kit can accomodate.  Still, the VC probably has more different colour options that just about any other mark of Spitfire, especially if you factor in Malta's 'home-made' schemes. 

[Peter Roberts]

The first of the new mould Airfix 1/72 P-51 Mustangs had a problem with their u/c legs - the follow up release doesn't, so if you can get the later release the legs should be okay. I wrote to Airfix about the issue and was told to straighten them in hot water (!) - reminded me of the famous law suit against McDonalds when a customer spilt hot coffee on their hands and sued for the pain. And won! 

 

Lets hope the quality control is up to speed for the Spitfire VC.

 

 

[Cammer625]

So this kit has 70ish parts the beginner is listed as 26 parts - those sprues don’t aren’t set up to easily finish the beginner set (the props are on a different sprue to the spinners< ect).  Fuselage and wings and things all together.  While you can cut sprues up there would be lots of wastage and little sprues floating around.  So maybe they beginners kit might have a seperate sprue for the bits and pieces to complete the build (prop, undercarriage ect).

So they could have made the interior a bit more refined (maybe).

Edited April 5, 2020 by Cammer625

[Ratch]

On 09/01/2020 at 18:58, Ratch said:

The Beginner Sets are completely separate new tools to the standard products. Just had it confirmed by Airfix.

I know its been a while since I posted this, but it seems to need repeating.

[Procopius]

3 hours ago, Peter Roberts said:

reminded me of the famous law suit against McDonalds when a customer spilt hot coffee on their hands and sued for the pain. And won! 

 

 

It was an elderly woman who was severely burned, to the point where the flesh was literally sloughing off of her legs, and the McDonalds in question had ignored numerous warnings that their coffee was far too hot. The corporation opted for a jury trial rather than simply paying her medical bills, as she had asked them to do, and so found themselves on the hook for far more than if they'd simply done the right thing in the first place.

[John Laidlaw]

3 hours ago, Procopius said:

rather than simply paying her medical bills

She had to go through extensive corrective and reconstructive surgery as a result of the burns she suffered. As PC correctly points out, if the corporation had done the decent, correct thing, this would never have been a talking-point.

[Dave Fleming]

The separate upper wings for clipped and standard tips surprised me at first, but the more I think about it the more genius is seems - no need to either try and get separate tips in line with the wings, or have to accurately cut off the tips for clipped wings. Another advantage (and this is just speculation on my part) if you make the clipped wings a drop-in tool, then you could do a narrow blistered clipped C wing quite easily

 

[Max Headroom]

If the kit comes with two sets of wings then I’m very happy. I have a high back MK.IX fuselage from an AZ MK.XVI and this will do nicely once I source a second radiator!

 

Trevor

[Giorgio N]

48 minutes ago, Max Headroom said:

If the kit comes with two sets of wings then I’m very happy. I have a high back MK.IX fuselage from an AZ MK.XVI and this will do nicely once I source a second radiator!

 

Trevor

 

Not two complete sets of wings but two sets of upper wing parts. You would still need to source the lower wing part, that also include part of the lower fuselage

[Max Headroom]

21 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

 

Not two complete sets of wings but two sets of upper wing parts. You would still need to source the lower wing part, that also include part of the lower fuselage

Ah well!

 

Trevor

[mike romeo]

Responding to comments on the chunkiness of the cockpit bulkheads, and recognising that the result is likely to be (much?) less refined than competitor kits, I wonder if some of the issue is caused by the high magnification of the in-build shots.  After all, any plastic cockpit pieces will be out of scale at 1:72 due to moulding limitations and the necessity to fit the pieces within fuselages of out of scale thickness and personal experience of macro photography is that it's very unforgiving.  So, when looked at at normal size, I wonder how bad it'll actually look?

 

Again, not trying to argue that Airfix are the most refined kits around, just wondering how much they are actually worse.  So, if we took comparison pics of competitors' kits at similar high magnification, how much worse would Airfix's actually be.

 

Whatever the answer, I do plan to get at least one of these.  I may do a comparison build with the KPM Mk Vc and try to take some comparison shots.

 

Regards

 

Martin

 

[Procopius]

Personally, I'm quite excited by this kit, and it looks great to me. I know Roy Sutherland of Barracuda was working with them to help with accuracy, and so my hopes are pretty high. It's been a while since Airfix favoured us with a new-tool Spitfire in 1/72 (eight years, in fact, almost as long as I've been back in the hobby, and any amount of time spent with me feels like an eternity), and their last one, the 1/72 Spitfire 22 was actually pretty excellent, and certainly the best offering in scale that anyone's produced. Despite some of their clangers over the past few years, I'm highly hopeful. 

[Bedders]

I agree, this looks pretty decent, and I'm lookng forward to getting my hands on a couple. Loads of scope for different colour schemes too. And I expect more accurate than the KP, which to my eye is about 1/73.5 scale.  So I hope Airfix sell loads and do well from it. Hopefully current events won't get in the way of a release later this year. 

 

Justin

[Denford]

To those who note that the kit offers only wide cannon bulges integral with the wing, I wonder if the panel outline might be repeated as a 'groove' on the inside of the wing.

Not difficult to do, and it would certainly make removal much easier.....

[alt-92]

On 4/6/2020 at 6:16 PM, mike romeo said:

Responding to comments on the chunkiness of the cockpit bulkheads, and recognising that the result is likely to be (much?) less refined than competitor kits, I wonder if some of the issue is caused by the high magnification of the in-build shots. 

Partly. The rather softer plastic Airfix's supplier uses isn't really conducive to fine details however, and I suspect the mould creation process takes that into account (otherwise we'd have seen Eduard-like details already - not saying they're perfect but at least a lot finer)