Jump to content

dr_g

Members
  • Content count

    321
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

309 Excellent

1 Follower

About dr_g

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

620 profile views
  1. Airfix Quality

    But they aren’t deliberately designed to have poor surface detail. As I mentioned previously, from what I remember of the Airfix talk I attended (plus I know one of their designers contributes to another forum), they are often as frustrated as we are about quality. They are well aware of the issues. It’s not like they’re going to read or get told any criticism and think “damn, why didn’t we think of improving our moulds?” Or whatever. It’s in no way as simple as that. These guys are at the top of their game, but they are working under production constraints defined by economics. The frustration I have (manifested in what might seem overly harsh criticism) is that they release great subjects, beautifully presented and with more online insight into their design process than any other manufacturer, yet the bottom line for me is the end result (the kit itself) simply doesn’t match the promise of all that other superficial stuff.
  2. Airfix Quality

    You can't make a judgment without a direct comparison, see my post with the wings...
  3. Airfix Quality

    Judge for yourself. I've taken the liberty of giving the J2M wing a coat of white Tamiya primer (ran out of grey!). I built that Lysander nearly 40 years ago, so excuse the paintwork. I'd maintain that the 2011 Airfix Zero (right) is closer in refinement to the 1974 Matchbox Lysander (centre) than it is to the 1977 Hasegawa J2M (left). And that the Hasegawa surface details are significantly more refined than the Zero. Matchbox are often (rightly) maligned for their trenches, but would you seriously judge the Airfix offering a significant/acceptable improvement after 37 years?
  4. Corvette K-165 "Battleford" Paper model

    No comment...
  5. Airfix Quality

    The Ki-61 is similar quality. I'm only going on what Scalemates says about the provenance of the kits. Either way, it's at least 34 years younger. I'd go as far as to say Airfix are nearer some of the old Matchbox panel line territory. I've got their '72nd Lysander (1974) on my bench right here, and the panel lines on that are easily comparable with the 2011 Airfix Zero.
  6. Airfix Quality

    Not worth it - they'll be reading this forum. Plus they're already well aware of where they stand in comparison with Eduard, Tamiya etc. Does anyone seriously think they don't know all this stuff already? I was at one of their talks a few year back (held at where I work). I'd mentioned on a model forum that I'd be going - firstly out of interest, secondly becasue of the issues I'd noted on the forum about their new tool Hurricane. During the presentation, the guy presenting asked if I was there! They are nice guys, undoubtedly very talented at what they do, but let down (and I think it's fair to say as frustrated as we are) by manufacturing constraints. It's as simple as that I think.
  7. Airfix Quality

    I think your being unkind to Hasegawa there. I picked up their old 1977 vintage 1:72 J2M "Jack" and a Ki-61 "Tony" for something like £4 each at Cosford a few yeas ago, and was amazed at the quality. Here is a comparison of mouldings: The 2011 Airfix Zero vs. the 1977 Jack. I should have given them both a coat of Tamiya primer to normalise the contrast, but subjectively, the finest details of the Hasegawa moulding look to be about half as deep and half as wide of the newer Airfix one. Remember the Airfix Zero is 34 years younger... I'd be very interested to see an objective comparison of panel lines from the original "new tool" Airfix Spitfire from (2010?), and their 2011 Zero, or even the new Phantom. I'd bet good money that there would be no significant difference in the widest lines from then to now. I don't think it's anything to do with the skill of the Airfix designers (I'd expect them to be among the best in the industry) or them having an "A" or "B" team (I assume they don't have enough staff for that). It's a question of how much they are willing to pay their sub-contractors to do the toolmaking and moulding. You get what you pay for. I wish they'd stick to 1:48 (or even move to 1:32) scale, then they would easily stand comparison with the best in the business...at a price.
  8. Corvette K-165 "Battleford" Paper model

    Thanks all!
  9. Corvette K-165 "Battleford" Paper model

    Much appreciated. Shame about the hull sides, otherwise a pretty good kit. I think Battleford also had artwork on her main gun, but I couldn’t find a good enough image to print.
  10. Arizona

    Beautiful work! Almost makes me want to ditch paper and use plastic and brass instead..
  11. Finished images here: Thanks for all the positive comment along the way!
  12. HMCS Corvette K-165 "Battleford", Royal Canadian Navy, 1941. Built from paper, wire, clear acetate and sprue/elastic. HMV kit, scale 1:250 Build thread here: Thanks for looking!
  13. Actually, they were made by my pal, whose got even more rigging to do than me...
  14. So rigging complete, masked the base up ready for matt varnishing (almost forgot to mask the windows...): So, assuming the varnish doesn’t attack the ink (like it did on the <<Mellum>> almost exactly 12 months ago), the next post should be finished pictures.
  15. Airfix Quality

    If Airfix ever get to the stage where their panel lines are to modern standards, I've often wondered if all the great subjects they've released as "new tools" could be modified to incorporate the refined details? If so, brilliant. If not, I think they're destined to end up with a catalogue of great boxes containing what will, as other manufacturers push the boundaries, increasingly be seen as second rate (or worse) kits.
×