Airfix Vulcan. Talk about falling at the first hurdle!

[IanC]

On 8/22/2022 at 3:52 PM, spruecutter96 said:

Airfix REALLY need to fix their quality-control issues - modellers will start to "vote-with-their-wallets"..

 

I already have. I'll just build the ones I have in my stash and which I know are ok. It's a ridiculous state of affairs, and I just can't be bothered playing short shot roulette, especially with the bigger, more expensive kits. I want the stress to be in the building, not wondering if the parts are all present and correct before I've even opened the box.

 

[spruecutter96]

The QC process is actually pretty darned easy and quick, when you think about it. The moulders simply have to have one copy of all the sprues laid out on a table. The new sprues are then laid on top of the first example. Any short-shots or other deficiencies are then pretty obvious, surely. All you need is some checkers who actually care about the work they do. 

 

Obviously, this process will add to the cost of manufacturing, but I would say this is much less detrimental than having thousands of annoyed customers, who no longer trust your brand. In an extremely competitive field like model-production, having "incomplete" kits going out to your consumers is a HUGE own-goal. 

 

Cheers. 

 

Chris. 

Edited August 24, 2022 by spruecutter96
Correcting a typo.

[hendie]

15 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

IIRC @hendie  was up on the details of injection moulding and maybe able to advise on how these faults may arise, and how products are checked.     

 

Funnily enough, I'm just heading into the molding facility as I type so I'm going to be busy for a few hours. I'll pop back later and explain what goes or what should go on in a properly managed process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hook]

20 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

In the two main short short problems stories, the 1/48th Sea Fury fin, and the Vulcan cockpit floor,  these have been the same problems area, affecting many kits. 

You have forgotten the Red Top fins in Airfix's 1/72nd Lightning F.6.

 

I have never seen one either in the flesh... er, styrene or online which did not have an incomplete item. 

 

And let's not forget the general brouhaha with the clear parts in the earlier F.2A boxing.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[Bertie McBoatface]

On 8/22/2022 at 5:24 PM, peterburns said:

You can recreate that with sheet plastic in a few minutes.  Won't be able to see it anyway.  Probably takes longer to notify Airfix than to create a new floorboard

 

I agree. That's the pragmatic approach to the problem that I'd take if I had an Airfix kit to build. On the other hand, I never have an Airfix kit to build because I have adopted the even more pragmatic policy of not buying them.

[Meatbox8]

On 8/22/2022 at 3:19 PM, Duncan B said:

50% of the Airfix Vulcans I had in stock had that very same issue.

 

Duncan B

My goodness. That is a shocking statistic.

[Meatbox8]

On 8/22/2022 at 3:52 PM, spruecutter96 said:

In theory at least, Airfix will have good stocks of all parts for all the models in their current catalogue (out-of-production kits' spare-parts becomes a bit more murky, from what I've read).

 

To give you an example, about 4 years ago, I bought a load of spares for the Airfix 1/24th Mosquito (total cost was about 18 quid). I would not expect you to have to pay for your new parts, as the issue was effectively caused by the makers. 

 

Airfix REALLY need to fix their quality-control issues - modellers will start to "vote-with-their-wallets", if the company can't sort out this problem. Airfix seems to have had a real spate of short-shot issues in recent years.  

 

Hope this helps. 

 

Chris.  

Not to mention research errors and silly omissions with their kits.

[Meatbox8]

On 8/22/2022 at 6:46 PM, Graham T said:

It MAY come to that but there is some detail to add too.  Plus I believe it's part of the front whhel bay so possible structural!

And the kit costs over 70 QUID!  At that price one should expect the kit to be complete or at least a replacement part sent quickly.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Meatbox8
grammar

[Meatbox8]

On 8/22/2022 at 10:00 PM, rayprit said:

This kit and judging by comments many, many others is not fit for purpose and should be returned to retailer.  No matter how skilled we modellers are, we should no be expected to right the wrongs of a manufacturer, especially at £60 per shot.............it might be just a kit but imagine buying an item of clothing and finding imperfect stitching or buttons falling off...................would you stand for it?  Seller may well say that when you get it home a needle and cotton will soon sort that out...............the item is Not fit for purpose - end of story...............................sorry if your a seller of kits, but it also brings the item to your attention and could ovoid confrontation with other customers later on.

I'm still tempted to return my two Mosquito 'B.XVI' kits seeing as the boxes do not contain models of a B.XVI.  Trade descriptions and all that...

[Meatbox8]

On 8/23/2022 at 11:19 PM, IanC said:

 

I already have. I'll just build the ones I have in my stash and which I know are ok. It's a ridiculous state of affairs, and I just can't be bothered playing short shot roulette, especially with the bigger, more expensive kits. I want the stress to be in the building, not wondering if the parts are all present and correct before I've even opened the box.

 

I am coming to that stage.  The last few kits I have bought from them all have issues of one sort or another.  The Spitfire VC has incorrect spinners and no fuel filler cap.  The Tempest (at least my one) had some bad fit issues with one wing lower than the other which required a lot of sanding and filling to correct, not to mention a trailing edge which scaled out at about six inches thick.  The Vulcan has some strange minor omissions because of lazy research and has you attach the nose/cockpit to the airframe in an area where there are no real panel lines but is really hard to access in order to fill and sand.  As for the Mosquito, need I go on? No acknowledgement from Airfix, as far as I have seen, that they got it completely and inexplicably wrong and absolutely no effort to correct the errors.  

 

As my moniker suggest, I am rather fond of the Meteor F.8 but based on recent experience with the brand and still having a couple of Xtrakit/MPM Meteors in the stash I will probably give the Airfix new tool a miss, whereas I might have bought several had these aforementioned errors not been present.

 

 

[VMA131Marine]

On 8/23/2022 at 7:22 AM, lasermonkey said:

I may well be wrong, but it very much appears to me that they are run solely to prop up a failing vanity project.

You would be wrong. Hornby trains is by far the biggest component of Hornby Group’s overall sales. 
 

Hornby PLC is currently profitable too

https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/financials?s=HRN:LSE

[hendie]

Ok, third attempt at writing this (long day).

 

In really simple terms, quality inspection is done using Statistical Process Control (SPC). That is, a number of parts is inspected per predetermined period.  That could be 6 parts per run. 6 parts per hour. Those 6 parts could chosen randomly, or it could be 2 parts at the start of the run, 2 parts in the middle, and 2 parts at the end - ot it could be a completely random selection. 

Consider that the molding press when on cycle will  be spitting parts out anywhere from a part every few seconds to a couple of parts a minute. Parts are normally ejected from the mold and fall into a bin underneath the press, or can be removed by a pick and place robot.

 

Visual inspection is a slow process - think how long it takes you to inspect a single runner tree (or what is incorrectly called the sprue by many members here). 20 or 30 seconds if you're quick. But you first have to pick it out the bin, and you have to put it somewhere. Too late, the machine has already spat out another couple of runner trees in the time it's taken you to inspect one single part.

Humans just can't keep up, therefore inspection is usually done according to some predetermined sampling plan.

100% visual inspection is very slow, and very costly, and 100% visual inspection is never 100% effective.  

 

In reality though, SPC in itself is not a quality inspection. It's a technique that enables you to determine that your process is in control.  In the example above, if all your parts pass inspection you would consider your process is running inder control and would carry on. If parts failed inspection you would investigate, fix what was wrong and then restart the process. You would probably quarantine all parts produced since the last successful inspection and run a 100% visual.inspection on those, because somewhere along the line since you're last inspection your process wandered out of control, but you don't know when that started.

 

That's a very simplified explanation (cos I'm up to my eyes in it at the moment).

And that works great. It's been used for years. But it only works when you have an in-control process to start with and that takes time and effort (i.e. Cost) up front.

Running SPC on a process that isn't under control is a worthless exercise, and a complete waste of money.

That is where airfix (in my opinion) is falling down and based on the number of complaints and the issues I've seen, I don't think their molders process was ever in control in the first place - and that is 100% Airfix's fault for reasons I don't have time to go into right at thus moment but can explain further if anyone is interested

 

 

 

 

 

[lasermonkey]

11 minutes ago, VMA131Marine said:

You would be wrong. Hornby trains is by far the biggest component of Hornby Group’s overall sales. 
 

Hornby PLC is currently profitable too

https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/financials?s=HRN:LSE

I’m pretty sure I had read that the Hornby model railway business (as opposed to the overall business) was losing money, despite having the largest sales, whereas Airfix was actually turning a profit. That may have changed recently.

 

Whatever the financial situation, my feeling on how Airfix is viewed by the Hornby management hasn’t changed. Smaller companies seem to do far better with fewer resources. 

[tempestfan]

On 8/23/2022 at 8:16 PM, Denford said:

As noted above, the responsibility lies with the retailer: I suspect that, in turn, there is a replacement to them from Airfix.

Probably this is the cheapest way.

Everyone talks about 'Quality Control' but those who do might like to explain how this is to be performed at reasonable cost.  Visual inspection?  Weighing?   Supermarkets and other retailers will usually replace defective goods ie when the customer has done the inspection so to speak.

 

Probably not - all (I think) major manufacturers have been running a "direct" replacement service for decades. I guess in the case of Airfix that may have been a condition from Woolworth's to get listed there. But if that system was economically unviable, it would not have persisted for close to 70 years. This of course does not mean that the seller ISN'T legally responsible for supplying a defect-free kit.

The big problem for Airfix is that - from all the threads I have seen - usually one (or two) specific part(s) is/are affected by the short-shot issue. If (only) half the kits suffer, they'd need a special run of (likely) one specific sprue to cater for the spares. I have no idea how the Vulcan's mould is arranged, but such special run would probably take some effort (blocking unrequired sprues in the mould or whatever). And leave them with a huge quantity of parts not required as spares, and of course not saleable. They could despatch one complete sprue to every customer affected, which would cut down labour cost for detaching the spares, but increase mailing cost.

 

Weighing - oh yes, I had some clash with the then-head of Revell's Abteilung X well over 20 years ago, who claimed no Revell kit could suffer from missing parts for that very reason. My sealed Victor definitely was missing its clear sprue. That weighing claim may just have been a measure to fend off customers. I quieted him by opening a random selection of about 30 kits and sending him the (rubbish) decals. That got him thinking... I didn't get the Victor sprue, but I'll claim at least part of the merit that Revell ditched their local decal printer (code letter D, reportedly Dreier) and turned to Zanchetti and Cartograf instead. 

 

I have no idea how the situation is in the UK, but I know from personal experience that manufacturers moulding plastic parts for the automotive sector are having a fairly tough time in Germany. Yes, not every IM machine is compatible with any mould and/or moulding material, but if I were them (Airfix), I'd explore that because some companies may give them a good deal just in order to keep their trained work force.

[spruecutter96]

1 hour ago, VMA131Marine said:

Hornby PLC is currently profitable too

I suspect there could be some "creative accounting" going on here. Around ten years ago, the Hornby Group was reportedly nearly £30 million in the red. That is not the kind of liability that is easy to counter in these very turbulent times, particularly when you sell products with intense competition from overseas manufacturers (yep, I am aware that Hornby's model-railway stock is produced in China). 

 

Unless Hornby have sold off the "family silver-ware", it's difficult to see how they could make up the deficit. 

 

Cheers. 

 

Chris.  

[Troy Smith]

2 hours ago, hendie said:

and that is 100% Airfix's fault for reasons I don't have time to go into right at thus moment but can explain further if anyone is interested

I would be very interested to know more,  and Airfix do read here, so might possibly do some good in the long run... 

So please explain If you get chance 

cheers

[Sabrejet]

I know it's annoying, but not the end of the world. I'd just fix it and carry on. However if it was a more complex part I might feel differently. The first Airfix 1/48 Sabre kit had a short shot in the lower fuselage but was an easy fix, thankfully. Maybe they need to crank up the pressure a bit!

[bentwaters81tfw]

3 hours ago, Meatbox8 said:

 

 

As my moniker suggest, I am rather fond of the Meteor F.8 but based on recent experience with the brand and still having a couple of Xtrakit/MPM Meteors in the stash I will probably give the Airfix new tool a miss, whereas I might have bought several had these aforementioned errors not been present.

 

 

One of our club members has built the test shot for the upcoming magazine piece and kit release.

In his words 'it is superb' and 'possibly the finest kit they have produced to date' I saw it tuesday night, and it really is very nice.

He has built several test pieces for them.

https://www.facebook.com/IPMS-Ipswich-190037197796389/photos/2688412651292152

[Sabrejet]

1 minute ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

One of our club members has built the test shot for the upcoming magazine piece and kit release.

In his words 'it is superb' and 'possibly the finest kit they have produced to date'

He has built several test pieces for them.

https://www.facebook.com/IPMS-Ipswich-190037197796389/photos/2688412651292152

 

While I'm sure it's a nice kit, I doubt it would compete with those 1/48 Spitfire/Seafire kits Airfix did way back when. From the linked photo, I'd say the 1/72 Meteor suffers from the same clunkiness that I've seen in the panel lines of many recent Airfix releases. It still looks good, but does lack a bit of finesse.

[bentwaters81tfw]

You must judge for yourself. I'm no Meatbox buff, but we do have a full size one to compare against, and I was looking for known areas of detail.

I did mock him for missing the intake lips are wooden!

[Meatbox8]

10 minutes ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

One of our club members has built the test shot for the upcoming magazine piece and kit release.

In his words 'it is superb' and 'possibly the finest kit they have produced to date' I saw it tuesday night, and it really is very nice.

He has built several test pieces for them.

https://www.facebook.com/IPMS-Ipswich-190037197796389/photos/2688412651292152

Hopefully a return to form then.   

[Denford]

Glad to hear it (re Meteor), but aren't we 'a little off thread' ....?

Returning to the main topic of inspection, it might not be necessary to inspect every sprue since it appears faults develop so in a sense 'one would know where to start looking.'

All that said, I'm sure Airfix (and indeed any other manufacturer of similar injection molded items) must be well aware of this problem and know best how to address it.

Here we moan to BM, but for anything else (or non BM followers) one would take it back to the retailer and ask for a replacement.

It would be interesting if any BM follower has/has had hands on experience of QC.  Probably not as most such items now seem to be manufactured in India or China.  However is so, could they enlighten us on their methods.

 

[Navy Bird]

5 hours ago, hendie said:

Running SPC on a process that isn't under control is a worthless exercise, and a complete waste of money.

 

I can't agree with that. In addition to tracking the dependent variables in a moulding process (dimensions, etc.) SPC follows the independent variables (boost pressure, mould temperature, material blend, raw material vendor, etc.). Part of the SPC process is to find correlations between the two - as the mould temperature increases, does dimension X decrease? Questions like that. The entire purpose of this is to find the culprit - what is making the process go out of control? Once identified, it can be fixed, often with machine adjustments. The entire SPC analytical portion can be automated, and machine adjustments made without human intervention.

 

Now, an out-of-control process can still produce parts that are in spec, but it soon won't. SPC finds the trends - dimension X keeps getting larger, etc. The process goes out of control when certain values (typically X Bar and R) exceed the control limits - which are not the dimensional tolerances. You do SPC in this way so that you can see if your process will soon make bad parts, and stop it before it gets there. Short shots are often correlated with boost pressure and mould temperature, but not always. The example of the Vulcan cockpit floor could be easily found using a machine vision pattern matching system, which compares the moulded part to a "golden" part. This is done all the time in plastic moulding facilities. What stops all shops from doing SPC and machine vision is money. It takes some capital to set all this up and have it working correctly.

 

Cheers,

Navy Nerd Bird

 

PS. Believe it or not, this is what I did for 32 years of my sordid career. I should have stayed in my rock band (The Dithering Servos).  

[VMA131Marine]

5 hours ago, spruecutter96 said:

I suspect there could be some "creative accounting" going on here. Around ten years ago, the Hornby Group was reportedly nearly £30 million in the red. That is not the kind of liability that is easy to counter in these very turbulent times, particularly when you sell products with intense competition from overseas manufacturers (yep, I am aware that Hornby's model-railway stock is produced in China). 

 

Unless Hornby have sold off the "family silver-ware", it's difficult to see how they could make up the deficit. 

 

Cheers. 

 

Chris.  

There are typically serious penalties for “fudging the numbers” in a required financial report such as all publicly owned companies are required to produce so your initial statement could be taken as defamatory.

 

Here’s the latest financial statement from Hornby. The bottom line is gross sales have increased by £18 million since 2018, from £35.7 million to £53.7 million.

The annual report appears to show borrowings of around £6 million; I believe a lot of the previous debt was converted to equity owned by the creditor.

 

https://wp-hornby-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2022/08/Hornby-Annual-Report-2022-Web-Ready-Singles.pdf

[VMA131Marine]

7 hours ago, lasermonkey said:

I’m pretty sure I had read that the Hornby model railway business (as opposed to the overall business) was losing money, despite having the largest sales, whereas Airfix was actually turning a profit. That may have changed recently.

 

Whatever the financial situation, my feeling on how Airfix is viewed by the Hornby management hasn’t changed. Smaller companies seem to do far better with fewer resources. 

Gross sales up from £35.6 million to £53.6 million since 2018 and now turning enough of a profit that the employee profit sharing scheme kicks in. All reasons to be encouraged.

https://wp-hornby-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2022/08/Hornby-Annual-Report-2022-Web-Ready-Singles.pdf