1:72 Tornado GR4, Dambusters70th Anniversary

[dr_gn]

After a memorable day back in May at Ladybower reservoir for the 70th anniversary flypasts, I thought I'd make a model of one of the Tornados I saw:



I couldn't figure out why there were no aftermarket decals for these aircraft, since I assumed they'd be quite popular. According to some forums, the MOD has registered the "Dambusters" name, so unless it's licensed, nobody can sell decals (happy to be corrected). I've seen a couple of home-made sets for sale unofficially, but they didn't look great.

Unfortunately that leaves the hopeless Airfix limited edition kit of the 70th anniversary GR4 as the only option. Despite the shiny new box and box art, it looks like it is basically the ancient MRCA kit of the mid '70's (again, happy to be corrected). I'll give it to my 6 year old to build. I got the infinitely better (and cheaper) Revell GR1 and will use that in conjunction with a simple a resin GR4 coversion kit from Freightdog. Luckily the Airfix decals are superb, and contain not only the main markings, but a comprehensive set of stencils:



I ordered the Airfix kits on Sunday, got them today. Excellent service; free postage, in fact everything apart from the models themselves is first class. Ironic huh?

[dr_gn]

perdu said:

I will be long for this one too doc

I do think you are being a bit harsh on the Airfix Tornado though

I made this one back in (about) '84 as part of a branch diorama. Did a little tiyding of the root cuff area over the swingy bits, not much else.




I have been told that the pod 'fit' is wrong but when I made the model they were only recently in service and info was harder to get, blimey we get life easier these days.

The kit was basically just a modified MRCA mould as you suggest, but not too far away.

One of my co-members built a monogram Tornado for the dio, it was as porky as a porky thing that o/d'd on swill. Its shape was very different to the photos of the real thing we had.

Anyway as I said, following avidly. I love your build approach.

Crap pictures which I will remove if you like, only photos of two photos. The actual models are landfill near Aldridge I understand.

b

No problem with the pictures - it's a model Tornado thread after all!

It's all relative - with skill any kit will look good (yours does look great, tragic it ended up in landfill), but back in '84 your choices were more limited. My point was that if you comapare it with the cheaper Revell offering, there's no contest in terms of fit of parts, refinement of detail and of course surface detail (this Airfix version still has raised panel lines). If the price reflected the relative quality of the kit, in this case fair enough, but it didn't.

Anyway - I bought two (plus a drinks coaster to bring it above the £30 free postage limit!) and will hopefully be getting the new tool Airfix Tiger Moth, so it can't all be bad!

Here's my ancient Airfix Tornado from a previous modelling life, now hanging in my son's room. Looks fine from a distance, but these days I go a bit further with the details:



Once I've nicked the decals, he can have a go at the kit and paint it with his watercolours. The other kit will remain in the stash as a reminder of a great day out in the Peaks last May. It's a limited edition of 2000, so who knows one day someone might desperately want a Dambusters decal sheet from an Airfix Tornado!

[dr_gn]

HoHoHo said:

Bookmarked.

Looking forward to another masterclass dr_gn

Ha! I doubt it. I just treated myself to a shiny new airbrush from Little-Cars, so I'll be at the bottom of the learning curve again with a new brush. Having said that, it's in a different league in terms of ergonomics even if the quality of the lines is about the same as my old one:



Despite ever more frequent upgrades and maintenence of my faithful DeVilbiss Super '63, I was literally spending more time repairing it than painting with it.

Happy Christmas and happy modelling one and all!

[dr_gn]

perdu said:

I didn't consider the "cheaper Revell one" option to be honest

I do love the 56 squadron Tornado. Looks nice.

As I said, I'm along for the trip. (I like the Dambusters picture, wish I'd been there.)

The new airbrush looks kinda 'elite' too, I might put that on next year's Christmas list if you get on with it as well as Eric does.

I bought the old Tornado after a walking trip in the Lake District - really impressive to see them training around there.

I think this particular Revell kit is based on one released as a new tooling in 1998 :

http://www.scalemates.com/products/product.php?id=...

All Airfix's Tornado kits seem to stem from their 1975 Panavia MRCA kit:

http://www.scalemates.com/products/product.php?id=...

Here's a full timeline of all manufacturers showing all the interbreeding of the various manufactureres. It's complicated...

http://www.scalemates.com/products/product.php?id=...

Scalemates is a great website for ascertaining the provenance of a kit - it's a bit tricky to navigate, but interesting once you figure it out.

The airbrush is slightly different from the standard Evolution (it's called the Silverline) in that it has a needle preset barrel at the end of the handle. It replicates the Super '63 in that it allows you to preset the amount the needle is retracted when spraying. I also specified the new 'pincer' type diffusser that allows you to see the needle tip for really fine work, and allows you to remove any paint build-up with your fingers before it causes spattering. I sprayed some of the Airfix Gladiator using my pal's standard Evolution, and it was really nice to use.

[dr_gn]

perdu said:

Scalemates needs to up its act with regard to the Airfix iterations, don't they?

They list the F3 as if it was the same moulding as the GR1/GR4s, which even though I wasn't modelling back when the F3 came out I knew had to be a different fuselage.

Still that is a damned complicated timeline and somebody was brave to tackle it, not my meat!

If you have some experience already with those airbrushes I think the masterclass is ON again

Not sure about the Airfix family tree. The fuselages look slightly different, but most of the other parts look identical. Don't have the GR4 to hand at the moment, but from memory it looked like it had exactly the same cockpit assembly as the first MRCA version.

[dr_gn]

Mutley said:

Dr, For the very same reasons - was sat at teh Ladybower reservoir in May, and I bought the Airfix Dambusters Tornado when it came out, and on a strange co-incidence have the Revell GR1 to build as well.

Will be watching your build and this thread with interest.

Cool.

As Perdu proved, the Airfix version can look good, and if it has the aniversary markings, all the better.

I'll probably only ever build one more 1:72 Tornado, so I want the best one out there; that's why I will be using the Revell kit. Another advantage of this version is that you can get quite exquisite resin details sets for it (IDS variants) from Aires. Today the cockpit and wheel bays arrived:



and I also got the Eduard etch set (mainly for the rear view mirrors and afterburner rings) and some "remove before flight" tags:



Just waiting for the FreightDog GR.4 conversion resin bits and MasterModel brass turned pitot tube and AoA probes.

Should be quite strightforward...

ETA, just looked on EBay, and there are a few of the limited edition Airfix versions that have sold for £10+ more than you can buy them direct from Airfix. Strange.

Edited by dr_gn on Friday 27th December 15:10

[dr_gn]

ecsrobin said:

Hopefully of some assistance to you. I should have a few more of the interior but need to take a look and may need to edit prior to posting so give me some time.

Camera Roll-435 by -robinecs-

Camera Roll-434 by -robinecs-

Camera Roll-431 by -robinecs-

Fantastic - is that a GR.4? Not noticed the side handles in the rear on the model I've got. Frodomonkey is getting me some pics too on the other forum, so there will be no excuses for screwing this one up.

Thanks very much for posting.

[dr_gn]

Master Model AoA probes and pitot tube arrived today - amazing.

[dr_gn]

ecsrobin said:

Wow! Don't loose them!!

All a bit black magic how they make them.

Just need the Freightdog GR.4 conversion bits now (and to finish the Curtiss Hawk).

[dr_gn]

Final part of the jigsaw arrived today, the Freightdog resin GR.4/a conversion parts:

[dr_gn]

Mutley said:

BBC did a piece on the last flights of the 617 Tornados this morning.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25951180

Doc, any help on colours?
(have cross-posted with the flyover thread)

Yep, thanks very much.

[dr_gn]

Skii said:

Hi Dr_gn

If you are going for accuracy you might want to look at the nose, the nose on the Revell 1/72 doesn't look right (doesn't taper towards the pitot correctly) and both Flightpath and PP Aeroparts (no longer) did resin replacements.

J

Yeah thanks, I saw that. FWIW I might try spinning it up in the lathe, and if that doesn't work I'll get some resin.

[dr_gn]

So after the Mustang and Hawk I thought I'd postpone the Mosquito and make a start on this; I can't face painting more than one colour for a while so here goes:



It's a fairly complex assembly, but fits together pretty well. Surface detail is great, fuselage moulding dated 1998.

I've also made a start on the resin undercarriage bays and the original kit legs. They are quite complicated and will take some careful alignment. I'll probably reinforce the main gear pivots with brass rod. The front leg looks like it's been moulded in the extended position, so that'll have to be shortened. The tyres are flatted rather than bulged, but I guess this was a nice touch 16 years ago.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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: