Airfix Vulcan

[cjhm]

Hi All

Started my Airfix Vulcan last night, I acquired this a few months back as the VTTS release with paints etc. Build will be from the box using kit decals etc as XH558

I've assembled the wings, tail, intake trunking and bomb doors onto bottom fuselage and poked around the other parts. I now feel the need to have a minor rant

Personally I can live with the basic cockpit (as little will be seen once finished) and raised panel lines (easy to sand off; not bothered about rescribing as to me she should be smooth anyway) which others could feel inappropriate

However ...

Yes, we should be grateful for a kit of the Vulcan in 1/72 and I am still looking forward to the build as have wanted to do this model since seeing the Vulcan flying in 2009

But ...

Bearing in mind that this kit cost £30 and is likley to be purchased by or for many casual builders of all ages\skill levels (eg via Argos or impulse buy at Airshow etc) I feel a little short-changed by the following:

- Loads of flash, in turn causing poor fit (eg I had to add plastic card strips behind bomb doors to aid fitting but there are still huge gaps)

- Lack of XH558 VTTS specific instuctions (Unless I have missed them). ie need to remove nose radome and delete the cooling vent on rear of fuselage identified so far, ignore advice to paint intake trunking white etc

- and only 2 flying hours :-)

Am I being too picky or could\should Hornby\Airfix have spent a little more care (eg cleaned\repaired mould, improved instructions) ?

Edited September 20, 2011 by cjhm

[Paul J]

Chris,

Please don't get me wrong, this is not a rant in return, but this kit is the only game in town in 1/72 and we should be greatful we have this still available. True it would have been good if Airfix tidied up the tooling a bit before re-releasing, but we are modellers and a little but of extra effort on this kit , despite its age, will be rewarding.

As for the mods needed to the kit to make XH558 perhaps something could have been included but afraid its down to the individuals to do these mods as the general casual buyers of the kit as you say, at airshows, won't be too bothered or even know about these mods.

Look forward to seeing your end result at the club.

[Dave T]

And its been around what... nearly 30 years ? I'm sure a bit of flash can be forgiven from the moulds

[Chris Jephcott]

That aside... it would be very nice to see a new moulding of the Vulcan in 1/72 at some stage.

It's an ok kit, and it's the best we're going to get for anytime soon. It's old and typical old Airfix in many ways, but there is something endearing about it still.

I don't mind it - as long as it goes together well, and looks the part, then I cannot complain!!

[cjhm]

Think I'm in the minority then ....

A bit of flash would be OK but mine has '1970s eastern block' flash around most of the wheels, UC, and other minor parts

I think what I was mainly trying to get across was more about what this kit says to 'casual\new' modellers rather than moaning about the effort I need to put in, especially as this particular kit is sold in places away from our favourite 'model' shops, ie Argos etc

The instructions could be improved for minimal effort\cost in my opinion and I think that would be important to some (I agree not all) of the 'casual\new' modellers

The quality of mouldings could put the uninitiated off as well in my opinion, for example someone who has experienced Games Workshop products would baulk at the quality of these mouldings and the cleanup needed

I know it all comes down to money but its also important for Hornby\Airfix to keep up with market expectations so we (the 'serious modellers') continue to benefit from the new tools and long awaited re-releases their continued success supports

As I said originally though, we should be grateful this kit is still available and I still am. Hornby\Airfix still has my full support (We do trains and Scalex as well)

[Martin @ RAM Models]

I think I can see both sides of the argument.

To us in the know, yes we can accept the limitations of the kit/moulds. They are as Dave has commented old, and they are a throwback to the Airfix of old.

The point I would make is that how many newcomers to the hobby will buy this repackaged old kit or even one of the many others in the Airfix range and be dissapointed by poor fit and poor quality of parts and not make repeat purchases ?

I think that the industry has come a long way in the last umpteen years and rehashing old kits in fancy new boxes does little to help newcomers possibly taken in by some fancy box art (and what great design box artwork Airfix now produce).

Saying that I am wanting a Airfix Vulcan & Victor to add to my collection so maybe I am speaking a load of tosh

[Dave Fleming]

Lots of flash is poor quality control, which they could tidy up surely?

It does have one major problem as far as XH558 is concerned, in that it has the series 300 engines, whereas XH558 has the longer Series 200

[pigsty]

My Vulcan was made in 1983, when the kit first came out, and it had quite a lot of flash. There must be something fundamentally amiss with the mould; not sure how easy it would be to "clean up" (although I'm fairly sure it would take more than a quick run-round with a duster).

Instructions to delete the odd feature to make the airframe closer to XH558 would, I agree, not be much of a chore. But deeper changes - and improving fit and finish generally - are unlikely to be practical. Effectively, the whole kit would need to be retooled - in other words, Airfix would have to repeat the Valiant, and bear that expenditure instead of making money off the existing mould. I'm sure that would be very nice ... and as I'm fantasising, how about a 1/48 Javelin or Scimitar?

[thx6667]

The point I would make is that how many newcomers to the hobby will buy this repackaged old kit or even one of the many others in the Airfix range and be dissapointed by poor fit and poor quality of parts and not make repeat purchases ?

And yet kids at make and takes build stuff like old P-40, Skyhawk etc and have no such issues, so it tends to be a case of enthusiast thinking kids make kits with enthusiast sensibilities, when that isn't the case. And someone could equally be "put off" by a modern kit with too many finely moulded but delicate parts.

Swings both ways.

[Seahawk]

2 points:

- Firstly in terms of deterring newcomers to the hobby, there are much more grievous offenders out there (eg Stormovik, R.E.8, Albatros, Walrus), however lovely the transfer sheets they now come with.

- Secondly new moulds cost money of which even Hornby have a finite amount. As an Airfix accountant (or even shareholder) would you rather see one revenue stream from a so-so Vulcan that will satisfy most purchasers plus another from an exciting brand-new tooling OR significant new investment which will only capture the existing Vulcan revenue stream plus, say, 20%? As an enthusiast, would you rather have a super-duper Vulcan OR an so-so Vulcan and a super-duper new mould, eg of the Shackleton?

Personally, I'd like to see a new Vulcan (or even retooling of some of the seriously disappointing early Hornby releases) but NOT at the cost of that Shackleton. Or Lincoln. Or Blackburn Shark Mk III.

[Andrew Jones]

And yet kids at make and takes build stuff like old P-40, Skyhawk etc and have no such issues, so it tends to be a case of enthusiast thinking kids make kits with enthusiast sensibilities, when that isn't the case. And someone could equally be "put off" by a modern kit with too many finely moulded but delicate parts.

Swings both ways.

Have too agree with Jonathan here, a lot of youngsters/newcomers will build this kit and others like it and be perfectly happy with the result, however, give them a Dragon armour kit [ or similar ] with hundreds of individual track links and it will put them off for life.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Andrew Jones

[AnonymousAA72]

I really don't have a problem with Airfix's Vulcan - the errors are generally fixable; Airfix could of course throw a lot of money at a new 1/72nd scale Vulcan, but personally I'd prefer that money to be spent on new and in relatively uncharted territories - Vampires and Venoms, Meteors, Scimitars, Javelin FAW9....... etc., in 1/72nd and 1/48th.

Of course they DO need to spend a big wadge on new tools for 1/72nd Lightnings , a 1/48th scale Meteor F8 and a Hunter FGA9 but that all goes without saying...........

[Test Graham]

Wishful thinking, I feel. Given the low production runs of modern kits, the number sold to enthusiastic young beginners may not be as large a proportion as implied above. I suspect more models are sold to people who have made a number of others already. Even young and beginner modellers are put off by poorly fitting kits with parts that have to be carved from the flash before assembly. (Yes, they are probably put off by over-detailed kits too, but how's that relevant here?) People, however young or inexperienced - beyond the absolute first-timer - are not stupid or easily fooled. They can see that kits do exist that are cleanly moulded and go together well. They will learn to avoid those that are not and do not. Companies that insist on retreading their older kits run the risk of gaining a poor reputation that can only damage the sales of their better products. Either by selective buying or the loss of those who try modelling and decide that if that's what it's like, they want no more of it.

Having said that, companies are entirely justified in retreading their kits when there is no alternative available, as in the case of this Vulcan. There are enough people who want a Vulcan to outweigh any disappointment in the current production quality, and the major companies have a large supply of such subjects. Perhaps some kind of warning sticker should be applied: "Beware: tooling older than you are."

[thx6667]

Wishful thinking, I feel. Given the low production runs of modern kits, the number sold to enthusiastic young beginners may not be as large a proportion as implied above. I suspect more models are sold to people who have made a number of others already. Even young and beginner modellers are put off by poorly fitting kits with parts that have to be carved from the flash before assembly. (Yes, they are probably put off by over-detailed kits too, but how's that relevant here?) People, however young or inexperienced - beyond the absolute first-timer - are not stupid or easily fooled. They can see that kits do exist that are cleanly moulded and go together well. They will learn to avoid those that are not and do not. Companies that insist on retreading their older kits run the risk of gaining a poor reputation that can only damage the sales of their better products. Either by selective buying or the loss of those who try modelling and decide that if that's what it's like, they want no more of it.

It's not wishful thinking just first hand observations of practical experiences - i can remember at (I think it was Yeovilton) one of the Airfix marketing guys having his ear bent by someone on this very subject, just as a family came out of the make and take with their kids clutching their pink and tiger striped A-4s..

Ultimately the evidence of the various make and take events completely goes against everything you've said, which again goes to demonstrate that how enthusiasts think others make models, and how others actually do make models are two different things.

As for the numbers, I seem to remember folk trying to argue the toss with my good friend Andy Farmer when he was field sales manager at Humbrol, so if folk believe what they want to believe then I guess nothing will convince them otherwise.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Jonathan Mock

[miduppergunner]

I think Airfix and kit manufacturers generally are all much the same - quality is not paramount - and this extends to many manufactured good these days. I think it probable that the accent on money and returns is more paramount than ever before. But it is up to the consumer - you can hardly blame a manufacturer (of any product) for not improving his product if it sells adequately - after all that is the prime purpose of the business.

As to putting newcomers off etc. - this can be debated endlessly with no likelihood of a conclusion - how could you carry out a survey "Would you have bought this model if.....?" "Did this model put you off?"

I am bias - I think that everything should be "quality" - but have to settle for second best frequently. And so like you cjhm I am in the minority. That minority is ever decreasing too.

Airfix are upping the ante though I believe - for example the new Valiant - yes a few inaccuracies - but very nicely engineered excellent fit and no flash! And at £39.99 (or less) does make the Vulcan kit look rather over priced - taking into account too the probability that production costs there have been covered a while back? So it is the fault of the consumer/modeller - generous to a fault. Or bias? Either way they are to blame if newcomers etc. are put off or discouraged.

Edited September 20, 2011 by miduppergunner

[Martin @ RAM Models]

I am very interested to read your comments Jonathon. I had always seen the argument from my own perspective, and maybe you are right when you say that we view things in relation to how we as enthusiasts build kits rather than through the eyes of a beginner.

Saying that however I alway's remember building mainly Matchbox kits as a kid. I knew that they went together better than Airfix. Was that me as a newcomer making my own decisions or was that my experienced father (the enthusiast) doing what you have alluded to in your post of clouding my views lol

Andrew your point regarding failure in the hobby through picking a kit such as a Dragon Armoured kit with hundreds of links, well surely that is where sensible choice of first subject comes in and that problem will always be present in modelling including other area's of the discipline. R/C aircraft is awash with stories of modellers trying to build and fly an R/C Spitfire as their first subject.

Interesting debate though chaps.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Martin @ RAM Walkarounds

[thx6667]

Saying that however I alway's remember building mainly Matchbox kits as a kid. I knew that they went together better than Airfix. Was that me as a newcomer making my own decisions or was that my experienced father (the enthusiast) doing what you have alluded to in your post of clouding my views lol

I was raised on Matchbox, as a six year old the only things that meant anything to me were the optional bits and decals which made the kits feel a bit more special. I can remember making the Revell 3-in-1 collectors series P-39 kit, thinking that was really special and what proper modellers made - looking back on that kit, its a rivet strewn horror but none of that even registered with me at the time.

I think the best example of wrong-end-telescope was comments on an-other forum some while back about how tough it was for kids to get into the hobby given the cost of Japanese kits, resin, etch, decals, reference...

Say what?

[John]

I know I've posted these before, but...

Let kids see that building models is fun and the rest will fall into place.

J

[Test Graham]

To their great credit, Airfix are working to further the cause of modelling into the younger generation, but one anecdote (or ten) doesn't make the entire market, and the short-term sales sheet doesn't tell the whole story either. Since I started modelling with the first Airfix Spitfire Mk.I (or was it a II?) it has always been possible to choose between models of greater or lesser quality. For example, Monogram used to be a touch above the others. Then Airfix, then Heller, then Hasegawa and Tamiya. have lead the field. Despite some backsliding, there has been considerable progress in the direction of better models, and the stuff we used to make quite happily in the fifties would be greeted with derision nowadays. Quite right too.

Now there may be all sorts of claims for the market lacking discrimination, but that's not what the shelves of the shops will show you. The average quality of models has gone up, and is continuing to rise. In the end, quality has told, and it continues to tell. Even just looking at Airfix's recent outlook, you can see that quality has risen over the past few years. They have a little way to go to match the market leader, but they are movng on. (I'm not sure they actually want to go quite all the way, but that's a separate discussion.) It isn't just Airfix: look at the progress of the Czech short-run companies from the early MPM/Karo As to recent Special Hobby or RS. See how the Russians have improved from Frogspawn and Kometa Antonovs to the latest AModel. (OK, that's Ukrainian, sorry.... will Zvezda do?) Compare a Matchbox Fletcher with the latest Dragon Benson (or even a Trumpeter Fletcher, poorly received although that was!)

No company should ever be happy with customers complaining about fit or flash. Poor quality will result in low opinion which will result in poor sales. Hornby know that from their experience with model trains - or if you think that's a little too close look at Farish/Bachmann. Better quality means happier customers at all levels, and better sales. In modelling as everywhere else.

[pyro-manic]

Personally, I don't really think it's much of a problem for the Vulcan. "Enthusiasts" will know (or will find out) that the kit is an old tool, and will be prepared to take the time to research any alterations, corrections etc. that need to be made to build a specific machine. Likewise they'll be prepared to put in the effort to get the result they want. "Casual" builders simply won't care - they'll have fun glueing it together, slap on paint and markings, and call it done, and that's the important bit. IIRC the new Revell 1:32 Hawk is in red plastic for just such a reason - the people who buy it in Argos will slap it together without needing to paint it if they don't want to. Just add the markings and presto, a Red Arrows machine in an afternoon.

[miduppergunner]

Ahh..... deja vu, most definitely.

[thx6667]

but one anecdote (or ten) doesn't make the entire market, and the short-term sales sheet doesn't tell the whole story either.

Hardly anecdote - years worth of near identical and consistant experiences at events where kids come into contact with modelling as well as sales trends that don't tell lies either. What about the Project Airfix school kits? Sales of starters sets? Gift sets? The evidence is there.

I'd be curious to know what your own experiences have been in getting kids interested in modelling Graham, I have a bucket loads of first hand stories and I'm sure John has too. Equally you should have a look at the Airfix Facebook page to see how some of these "poor" kits are actually tackled by people not yet imbued with the hindsight of an enthusiast. That's not to excuse poor products, just showing that they sometimes do not represent the hobby destroying obstacles that tend to permeate anecdotal hyperbole from the comfort of a keyboard.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Jonathan Mock

[thx6667]

Ahh..... deja vu, most definitely.

Yeah we should ask it be posted as a sticky! Same old - x says y, y says z, there's disagreement, someone invariably loses it, mods turn up... it's like a much loved film, we know all lines beforehand, but we invariably tune in!

Edited September 20, 2011 by Jonathan Mock

[miduppergunner]

I really do think that any claim that poor quality kits (for example) deter some would be modellers has to be conjecture. There just is no evidence. It is a presumption held by modellers of some experience. At best based on a form of logic. But conversely, people still build models - and they cannot all be of the same generation - some have to be newcomers. And it appears the kit market is growing - there is still a demand - again this cannot be from just experienced modellers.

Hence consider debating this...... poor quality kits do not deter people from taking up modelling in general - the most likely deterrent (apart from having simply no interest) is cost.

[Toe]

Hence consider debating this...... poor quality kits do not deter people from taking up modelling in general - the most likely deterrent (apart from having simply no interest) is cost.

Too right, my girlfriends 10 year nephew couldn't give a monkey's armpit who manufacturers the kit or what the quality is like, he enjoys bunging it together, slapping some paint on it and enjoying it. For the younger modeller you have to look at it through their eyes and what is important to them is certainly not what is important to the "enthusiast"

Even for me I don't care so much on the accuracy or the quality, its the subject matter, having made the Vulcan in the past I didn't and don't care on the quality as such, its the aircraft itself I was interested in building and even if it meant it wasn't accurate, it looked vaguely like a Vulcan and that is all that matters.....each to their own is the saying I believe