1/72 De Havilland Mosquito by Airfix - released

[TEXANTOMCAT]

IIRC there are two organisations campaigning to get an airworthy UK Mossie - not just The Mosquito Pathfinder Trust but The People's Mosquito as well. In regard to BAe and the drawings, given the crash of RR299 which was operated by them at the time (such a shame, she was due to be gifted to the BBMF the following year if memory serves) , I imagine that the company lawyers were concerned about liability. This is also an issue for any UK operator of one of the NZ machines- getting the CAA to sign off on what is effectively a 'new build' aircraft - wings and fuselage in any event.

 

I hear people's disappointment with the kit and that's a shame - but personally I hope they actually DO a TT35. All the TT35 conversions were done by Brooklands Aviation at Sywell so naturally enough I want an excuse to build one for the Museum! By my reckoning of the 30 which survive 8 are definitely ex Brooklands machines though actually 8.5 as HJ711 has the rear fuselage from RS715 - some of the others were also repaired at Sywell eg T.III   TW117 now in Norway. 

 

Even if they don;t, there is always the possibility of scratching the tailwheel tow guard and I'm sure if an AM producer doesn't do a tow winch it might be scratchable- failing which Corgi do a TT35 with all the gubbins so it might be possible to rob one of those!

 

TT

Edited August 19, 2021 by TEXANTOMCAT

[The wooksta V2.0]

I think Freightdog may be doing the bits for a TT.35 at some point.

 

[JamesP]

rethought

Edited August 19, 2021 by JamesP

[fishplanebeer]

Do Freightdog need to do bits for a TT35 as it would appear that Airfix already seem to have this covered, even if not by design?

 

Regards

Colin.

 

Ps. I understand that the NZ Mossies may not meet the strict CAA requirements, or at least they would have to be thoroughly vetted along with their construction processes but in the USA they don't seem to be quite so concerned as that is where the 3 current ones reside.

[keithjs]

I must have missed something somewhere along the way so could someone explain the differences between the tailwheels please? Too kind.

Edited August 19, 2021 by keithjs

[Tbolt]

2 hours ago, The wooksta V2.0 said:

The radiators on both Airfix and Tamiya match.   The latter's wingtips also fit perfectly, whilst the Airfix canopy will fit the Tamiya.

 

I was told by someone who worked at the Mosquito Museum that Tamiya had sent a couple of blokes who spent several days crawling over airframes with measuring gear, so I don't doubt the it's accuracy.

 

Like Eduard who spent time measuring up a 109G 😂

 

Anyway interesting about the fin and it looks like maybe Hasegawa are the ones that got it wrong.

[Graham Boak]

Hasegawa, Airfix, Matchbox, Frog... everybody but Tamiya.  Which is why it was so difficult to believe/understand.

[IanC]

2 hours ago, Bertie Psmith said:

I read and understand the frustration on the last few pages of this thread. Could the problem be that we expect too much from Airfix? 

 

Possibly. Airfix wears an historic but very heavy crown. 

 

[Bertie McBoatface]

7 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Hasegawa, Airfix, Matchbox, Frog... everybody but Tamiya.  Which is why it was so difficult to believe/understand.

 

You'd be tempted to think that they copied each other's models. But that would be ridiculous! lol

[fishplanebeer]

Apparently those who have received the kit say that the tail wheel is too skinny so I presume that means the tyre is too narrow and/or the wheel leg itself is too thin but as mine is still in the post I can't really add any more.

 

Just a pity Airfix didn't pay a visit to the de Havilland museum and check over their B.35 example.

 

Regards

Colin.

[Bertie McBoatface]

1 minute ago, IanC said:

 

Possibly. Airfix is saddled with an historic but very heavy crown. 

 

 

Possibly because we all thought they were perfect when we were kids. Probably the kids who get them for presents today think the same. 

[Graham Boak]

2 minutes ago, Bertie Psmith said:

 

You'd be tempted to think that they copied each other's models. But that would be ridiculous! lol

Anyone with or having had these kits will confirm that they were not copied from each other - just faulty plans and each company's individual errors.

 

Not just kids seem to think Airfix kits are perfect, judging from the comments here when they are criticised.

[IanC]

1 minute ago, Bertie Psmith said:

 

Possibly because we all thought they were perfect when we were kids. Probably the kids who get them for presents today think the same. 

 

Of course. And most of the adults too.

[Bertie McBoatface]

1 minute ago, IanC said:

 

Of course. And most of the adults too.

 

I'm aiming to get hold of one of the kits I remember from the sixties and build it again. I'm curious to know if it was as good, worse or better than I remember. I might even find some improvement in my skill. 

[Bertie McBoatface]

6 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Anyone with or having had these kits will confirm that they were not copied from each other - just faulty plans and each company's individual errors.

 

That was a joke, Mr Boak. 🙂

[Bertie McBoatface]

14 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Not just kids seem to think Airfix kits are perfect, judging from the comments here when they are criticised.

 

Perhaps that's because we don't easily surrender our childhood beliefs and happy memories?

 

[RichG]

44 minutes ago, fishplanebeer said:

Just a pity Airfix didn't pay a visit to the de Havilland museum and check over their B.35 example.

Perhaps because they went to the RAF Museum at Cosford and used theirs?

 

As people have said many times on here, modern day museum exhibits are not necessarily the last word in accuracy as far as period specific details are concerned (unless it is the museum subject you are replicating). Perhaps a lesson to be learned is always worth checking details against supporting reference material or with subject experts. But I guess more research adds to cost / time and there are limits.  

 

Rich

Edited August 19, 2021 by RichG

[fishplanebeer]

But why not get a second opinion from the leading museum and experts on the Mosquito given their investment and desire to achieve a high degree of accuracy? This  isn't perfect hindsight it's just basic common sense in my view.

 

However we all know that the perfect kit of any subject has yet to be made and probably never will be given the diversity of opinions but it just seems that some manufacturers get nearer than others. In 72nd scale if you want a late marque Spitfire it's Eduard, Arma if you want a Hurricane or Wildcat and SH if you want a P-40 or Bf109E although all these have not been received without some objective criticism. Which makes it even more disappointing to discover that Eduard/SH will not be releasing a new Tempest and Spitfire 1a this year (if ever) contrary to the various rumours I've read.

 

Regards

Colin.

[Adam Poultney]

7 hours ago, The wooksta V2.0 said:

I'm building one I got from eBay and truthfully, I'm increasingly disappointed with it.

 

The errors spotted aside, it feels underscale. Some bits are frankly clunky. The fit of the exhausts is clever, but you have to fit them before and not later, leading to difficulties painting.  The fit of the undercarriage...  the use of the wing as a jig is clever, but the fit is fiddly beyond belief and all butt joints, no pins or axles. More worryingly, it looks way too small. Fitting it through the nacelle assembly is tricky and frustrating. The wheels are too narrow, the wheel tread is crude and the hubs look crude too.

 

The props are too small and the trailing edges are way too thick. Why, when Airfix got really thin ones in the Beaufighter, are they the scale equivalent of railway sleepers here?  The cockpit detail is nice but again feels clunky, especially the pilot's seat. He sat on his parachute AFAIK, not a cushion. 

 

Overall, the fit is good, the optional supercharger intakes are a good move and the fact it has the leading edge landing light makes building post war aircraft easier.  I really like the canopy and it fits the Tamiya kit almost perfectly. Hopefully the reverse is the case.

 

The further I get with the build, the more disillusioned I feel. I've been wanting this kit for a good decade or more and I just feel let down. Sorry, Airfix, you could have done so much better.

 

Edit: the prop compares in size with the equivalent Tamiya, but the comment re thickness stands.  I've several spare, so they'll make good substitutes.

Edit 2: the undercarriage length compares with the Tamiya although the complete Airfix assembly is too narrow compared to the Tamiya and the latter is more delicate, the Airfix one looks crude and clunky by comparison. The wheel is a good 1-2mm thinner than the equivalent Tamiya. 

This strongly echos my feelings about the Vulcan kit...

A ton of minor mistakes, missing details and oversights which frankly you'd expect a company like Airfix to avoid, and yes they're all fairly minor but when you have so many in a kit, and not just in one kit either, it becomes a pattern which reflects badly on the brand.

On the Vulcan, which is another highly anticipated kit, it's a few missing panel lines, a missing windscreen wiper, poor choice of placement for the two wipers that are there, incorrect details on the gear, missing parts from the crew door, etc...

Their 1/48 Sabre, from what I've read on this forum, has jacking attachments moulded in as parts to be added as standard (no mention of them as an option, almost as if the designer didn't know what they are). 

The Spitfire Vc is missing the prominent fuel hole in the cowling.

Some of these mistakes seem to come from whatever museum example they happened to scan; the windscreen wipers and the jacking attachments being examples of this. It looks like an over-reliance on LiDAR scans without double checking everything and understanding what each feature is, but I'm not a kit designer so I can only say so much and nothing for certain.

 

Inconsistent detail standards in the Mossie aren't something I've really noticed on other kits but I haven't built every recent Airfix kit. 

And overengineering seems to be a huge issue with Airfix. Although I enjoyed their Buccaneer I did think some of it was needlessly complicated and the vulcan has some odd engineering choices. There's a good reason that the standard hole and locating pin design is so common, it works when moulded well. I have no idea why some of Airfix's kits seem to think they're to be avoided at all costs, with awkward and imprecise ways of aligning parts

 

It seems that Airfix has some issues recently as this is becoming a pattern. Quite a few releases now seem to be marred by some issue or other, and I don't think it's just the standards we expect going up. 

[Bertie McBoatface]

1 hour ago, RichG said:

Perhaps because they went to the RAF Museum at Cosford and used theirs?

 

As people have said many times on here, modern day museum exhibits are not necessarily the last word in accuracy as far as period specific details are concerned (unless it is the museum subject you are replicating). Perhaps a lesson to be learned is always worth checking details against supporting reference material or with subject experts. But I guess more research adds to cost / time and there are limits.  

 

Rich

 

Didn't Tamiya long ago model their Meteor on the Cosford example, not realising that it was a Frankenstein's creature with wings from a different mark to the fuselage? And the Halifax in the Yorkshire Air Museum has wings from a different aircraft altogether!

[Graham Boak]

However, no-one has yet based a model on the Elvington Halifax, and although the wings came from a Hastings, what they did was to remove the bits that had been put into the Halifax wing design to make a Hastings.  Three out of the four 1/72 Halifax models produced would have benefited from actually looking at the Elvington machine, or (in the case of the older ones) those of the Halifax parts that were still available.

 

It is fair to say that despite the (justified) criticisms of the recent Airfix kits, none of them are anywhere near as awful as the Matchbox or even Revell Merlin Halifaxes.  (You brought up the subject of Halifaxes.)  Sorry if you think that's damning with faint praise.  I don't buy too many Airfix kits nowadays, and every one I do buy has some fairly obvious flaws/undesirable features, but they aren't bad.  I agree that their attempts to do things differently seem to fail more often than they succeed, in my experience, and often seem misguided,  But they are producing an attractive range of subjects that generally are at least as good as the alternatives available and often better.  Yes, we'd all love them to get better still, and a little more care and attention to the differences between the service aircraft, museum examples and/or manufacturers' plans would help in that respect.  As said above, that does cost time and hence money.

 

To close the circle of the argument: I'd love Airfix to do a Halifax, and would expect it to be the best Halifax produced so far.  But I wouldn't expect it to be without faults.  I'd still buy it.

[TEXANTOMCAT]

3 hours ago, fishplanebeer said:

Do Freightdog need to do bits for a TT35 as it would appear that Airfix already seem to have this covered, even if not by design?

 

Regards

Colin.

 

Ps. I understand that the NZ Mossies may not meet the strict CAA requirements, or at least they would have to be thoroughly vetted along with their construction processes but in the USA they don't seem to be quite so concerned as that is where the 3 current ones reside.

The CAA aren’t the FAA- also I think the Mossies are under the Experimental Category. Principally as regards the U.K. - there is no one to underwrite the design authority I don’t think- DH Support are unlikely so to do.

However ARCO are underwriting the paperwork and they are A8-20 so there must be a plan in place

 

TT

 

 

[Tbolt]

3 hours ago, fishplanebeer said:

Do Freightdog need to do bits for a TT35 as it would appear that Airfix already seem to have this covered, even if not by design?

 

Regards

Colin.

 

 

We'll they've obviously not modelled any of the tow gear - the winch and buffer unit. Also you would need the tail wheel guard and tail guard wire supports.

 

 

[Adam Poultney]

36 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Yes, we'd all love them to get better still, and a little more care and attention to the differences between the service aircraft, museum examples and/or manufacturers' plans would help in that respect.  As said above, that does cost time and hence money.

How many of us, if we are knowledgeable enough on a particular subject, would provide consultation on a kit in return for a few free copies when it goes into production? Some community outreach may be all it takes

Edited August 19, 2021 by Adam Poultney

[occa]

Can someone please make a compilation what's all wrong with new Airfix Mosquito ?