1:72 Tornado GR4, Dambusters70th Anniversary

[dr_gn]

Still cleaning parts up - there are quite a few!

This kit illustrates quite nicely how aftermarket parts can improve the fidelity of a model. For example:

Pitot tube; kit vs. Master Model Brass:



AoA probe; kit (moulded into fuselage) vs. Master Model Brass:



Cockpit and seats; kit (r) vs. Aires Resin (l). There is still alot of photo-etch to add to the Aires versions:





Wheel bays kit (l) vs. Aires resin (r):



The original Revell kit parts are actually very good, and the cockpit could be improved with a bit of scratchbuilding, but nothing beats resin for sharpness and detail.

[dr_gn]

I had a go a reprofiling the nose this evening. I turned a spigot and hot-melt glued the nose to it using a small drill to centralise everything:





Then stuck it in the lathe and pared and polished it slightly concave near the tip:



It's still not perfect (I think it shuold be more ovigal near the fuselage join), but better than it was:



The tip still needs shortening very slightly to get a smooth join withthe pitot tube.

[Yertis]

You take it to a new level, dr. Very impressed.

[dr_gn]

Yertis said:

You take it to a new level, dr. Very impressed.

Ha ha, ta. It's still not really right though. Perdu mentioned over on BM that the Airfix nose might be a better profile, so I had a look and I think he's probably right. Mine needs building up to be fatter at the fuselage joint, but I think it's good enough. Here is it (kind of) superimposed on a photo of the real thing:



...and compared with the Airfix decal diagram:



And compared with the Airfix version:



Even I was shocked as to how bad the Airfix Tornado really is. It must be among the worst kits currently available. They really do have some balls to put that in a nice new box and flog it to unsuspecting punters.

Anyway, a resin nose was available, which I'd use if I could get one, but I think it's now out of production, so I'll stick with my modded version.

[Yertis]

That Tornado is quite shocking. Quite a few years ago, 1991 actually I made one of my abortive attempts to return to the hobby and bought an Airfix 1/48 Tornado F3. That was the worst kit I bought in my life, and in fact I've subsequently learned that it's almost impossible to build a decent model from it.

[Eric Mc]

To put the Airfix kit in context, it originally appeared in 1974 and was the first 1/72 kit of a Tornado by anybody. It was originally based on the prototype and has been through a number of permutations since.

In fact, as you can see from the box art, the plane hadn't even got a proper name at the time the kit was released -



The Revell kit is approximately 25 years younger.

So, as I mentioned earlier, it isn't the best - especially as the moulds are probably a bit tired now.

To be honest, if a model is really really bad - I just won't bother building it. If it is bad but buildable, I'll give it a go.
(You should see the gaps on the Vampire I'm building at the moment)

What always surprises me is that Dr Grn obviously possesses outstanding modelling skills. he has demonstrated these here often enough. But still seems to gets flummoxed and annoyed by fixable problems with older kits.

[dr_gn]

Eric Mc said:

To put the Airfix kit in context, it originally appeared in 1974 and was the first 1/72 kit of a Tornado by anybody. It was originally based on the prototype and has been through a number of permutations since.

In fact, as you can see from the box art, the plane hadn't even got a proper name at the time the kit was released -



The Revell kit is approximately 25 years younger.

So, as I mentioned earlier, it isn't the best - especially as the moulds are probably a bit tired now.

To be honest, if a model is really really bad - I just won't bother building it. If it is bad but buildable, I'll give it a go.
(You should see the gaps on the Vampire I'm building at the moment)

What always surprises me is that Dr Grn obviously possesses outstanding modelling skills. he has demonstrated these here often enough. But still seems to gets flummoxed and annoyed by fixable problems with older kits.

You've obviously not read the whole thread, so allow me to summarise:

I know the provenance of the Airfix kit (as explained on post 1, page 1). In fact I built the original MRCA and the F.3 version many, many years ago. They were never particularly good mouldings even when new IMO (I still have the F.3, which obviously required a heavily modified lower fuselage for the missile recesses).

As I also explained, I never had any intention of building the Airfix GR.4; I bought it soleley for the anniversary decals. In fact I bought two.

As far as it being "fixable": You've got to be kidding? Sure I could spend months reshaping, filling and rescribing (or is some areas scribing for the first time) the entire kit, but why would I even contemplate that when the far superior Revell kit is available for £2 cheaper? That's the whole point of the exercise: Revell kit, Airfix (actually Cartograf) decals, becasue they were not available aftermarket due to MOD copyright issues.

The age of the Airfix kit and the fact it was the first of this aircraft type is totally irellevant to the poor kid who spends his saved pocket money on this beautifully marketed, temptingly packaged anachronism. The close-ups on the box side are actually close-ups of the box art with the background greyed out- very misleading I'd say. I'm amazed Airfix continue to sell such poor quality kits in the hope that they will tempt youngsters into the hobby.

[perdu]

Maybe we'll get lucky and Luffbramatt might be able to influence the management to ditch that one

I like silk purse jobs, for the sheer awkward bloodyminded challenge but seeing how good the "other folks's" Tornados are I will build one of those others rather than attempt the Airfix one in future

Hmm

I wonder if a Tonka could be back engineered to make a better MRCA...

I think I have a decal sheet somewhere

Not soon though, I've no intention of entering a Tonka competition with the doc

[dr_gn]

perdu said:

Maybe we'll get lucky and Luffbramatt might be able to influence the management to ditch that one

I like silk purse jobs, for the sheer awkward bloodyminded challenge but seeing how good the "other folks's" Tornados are I will build one of those others rather than attempt the Airfix one in future

Hmm

I wonder if a Tonka could be back engineered to make a better MRCA...

I think I have a decal sheet somewhere

Not soon though, I've no intention of entering a Tonka competition with the doc

Hmmm, now I always liked the MRCA scheme...

The funny thing about the Airfix decals is that presumably in their rush to shove something out of the door asap for the 70th anniversary, they appear to have specified the wrong aircraft serial number and pilot names for their own kit:

Thanks to Frodo Monkey on the BP&T thread, we know that one of the anniversary aircraft was a 'strike' version (ZA492) with the standard rear cockpit, and the other (ZA412) was a trainer version with dual controls.

The Airfix GR.4 has a stick in the rear, and no navigation or weapons equipment(the whole cockpit is pretty borderline tbh). So if you were being really kind you could say it was supposed to be a GR.4(T) version, but they've only included decals for the strike version.

Fine by me of course because I want the ZA492 GR.4 decals. Every cloud eh?

[Eric Mc]

Do you ever contact Airfix directly with your complaints?

It's all well and good moaning about them on here but if you feel so strongly about their kits and policies perhaps you should take these issues up with the management.

Or better still, speak to them face to face when they attend model shows. They are very willing to talk about their policies and plans and are very, very approachable.

I have similar feelings about some of Hasegawa's policies regarding their older (and sometimes rather iffy) kits - as well as their prices in the UK, but I don't moan about it (too much )and I rarely buy their older kits - so it doesn't upset me the way Airfix seems to upset you.

And as for your unwillingness to accurise an Airfix kit, I don't really understand that. You are an exceptional modeller and there is plenty of evidence of the sheer lengths you will go to change or replace areas of a model to make it just right.

Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 22 July 07:29

[Yertis]

I think the argument here is that Airfix (and I'm a big fan of Airfix BTW) package up very old mouldings as if they are new kits, which could be misleading. I can certainly understand why dr wouldn't want to try to make a decent model from that Airfix Tornado kit he's shown above. Why would anyone bother, it would be a waste of time. The only reason to do so would be as some kind of ultimate modelling challenge.

[mcdjl]

I think its very easy to miss the point that there are lot of modellers (maybe younger ones) who are more than happy to build something with approximately the right shape, who won't notice the panel lines on the planes, or that the shape of the nose is wrong. If everyone was like DrGN then airfix (and the others) would have to include resin/photo etch parts in all their models. Clearly there is market for both. I'm much more towards the 'OOB' end in that i will play with fancy bits if i can be bothered and maybe can up my game but will never have the patience to go to the ultra detail levels.

[dr_gn]

Yertis said:

I think the argument here is that Airfix (and I'm a big fan of Airfix BTW) package up very old mouldings as if they are new kits, which could be misleading. I can certainly understand why dr wouldn't want to try to make a decent model from that Airfix Tornado kit he's shown above. Why would anyone bother, it would be a waste of time. The only reason to do so would be as some kind of ultimate modelling challenge.

Exactly.

Eric Mc said:

Do you ever contact Airfix directly with your complaints?

It's all well and good moaning about them on here but if you feel so strongly about their kits and policies perhaps you should take these issues up with the management.

Or better still, speak to them face to face when they attend model shows. They are very willing to talk about their policies and plans and are very, very approachable.

What do I have to complain about? I wanted the decals knowing the kit was crap. I'm happy with the decals. If anyone was considering buying this kit, then I've posted comparative images with another manufacturer. Big deal.

I couldn't really care less about their policies. If they happen to make a decent kit I want, I'll buy it (e.g Gloster Gladiator, Tiger Moth, possibly fabric wing Hurricane)...and I didn't/wouldn't complain about it here.

If I do make negative comments, you can be sure they will be valid, and backed up with hard evidence of what I mean. I believe you'll find that EVERY issue I outlined with their new tool Bf109 has since been acknowledged as valid, and many were eliminated in a modified version of the kit (happy to be corrected). This was without any direct complaint by me. They obviously know where the errors are.

[dr_gn]

mcdjl said:

I think its very easy to miss the point that there are lot of modellers (maybe younger ones) who are more than happy to build something with approximately the right shape, who won't notice the panel lines on the planes, or that the shape of the nose is wrong. If everyone was like DrGN then airfix (and the others) would have to include resin/photo etch parts in all their models. Clearly there is market for both. I'm much more towards the 'OOB' end in that i will play with fancy bits if i can be bothered and maybe can up my game but will never have the patience to go to the ultra detail levels.

I understand that completely. With this kit we're not talking about ultra detail, I'm talking about basic quality and fit of parts.

Having read this thread, with the Tornado would you go with the £12.99 Revell or £14.99 Airfix version? Here's a reminder:

[mcdjl]

dr_gn said:

I understand that completely. With this kit we're not talking about ultra detail, I'm talking about basic quality and fit of parts.

Having read this thread, with the Tornado would you go with the £12.99 Revell or £14.99 Airfix version? Here's a reminder:

While I'd like to think myself a step above the kid builder, but I'm likely to be influenced by availability (I'm more likely to buy something i can pick up than on line) which means the airfix kit is more probable. Given the two side by side, you're right no competition, Revell wins.

[Yertis]

If that Airfix mould does go all the way back to the white MRCA kit of hallowed memory (and fragile elevon pivots – I learned a lot about material spec from them) then I suppose the valid reason could be that they couldn't get access to an aircraft to include that surface detail. That doesn't excuse poor fit or the other things mentioned. FWIW the slightly later Italaeri kit was worse and the later yet ESCI 1/48 offering was awful. But I'm delving back into the depths of time.

[Eric Mc]

Age has a lot to do with it. Airfix are working off (revised) 40 year old moulds. There is a valid argument that they should withdraw such tired old models. But then, so should all the other manufacturers who continue to release kits from moulds that are older than me (and that IS old).

[dr_gn]

So the only comment I made on the Airfix kit was this:

dr_gn said:

Even I was shocked as to how bad the Airfix Tornado really is. It must be among the worst kits currently available. They really do have some balls to put that in a nice new box and flog it to unsuspecting punters.

And now you're saying this:

Eric Mc said:

There is a valid argument that they should withdraw such tired old models.

So after an unecessary history lesson, and your usual 'Airfix is great' stuff, you actually agree with me?

[Eric Mc]

I often agree with you.

[72twink]

GN - Schoolboy error, if you didn't want to re-open the can of worms you should have just posted a pic of the Revell kit and the two decal sheets with a suitable "managed to get hold of these" comment instead of a picture of two boxes and a comment on the contents quality.

More modelling please!!