login   |    register

Scale Modeling Sponsors

See Your Ad Here!

World War II
Discuss WWII and the era directly before and after the war from 1935-1949.
Hosted by Rowan Baylis
NEWS
1:48 Firefly Photos
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 16,405 posts
AeroScale: 12,215 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 - 01:36 PM GMT+7
MPM Production have released a set of full-build shots of their recently released quarterscale Fairey Firefly Mk. 1.

Link to Item



If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
MS406C
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Landes, France
Joined: May 22, 2008
KitMaker: 95 posts
AeroScale: 82 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 - 02:57 PM GMT+7
Seems Ok compared to the old Grand Phoenix/AZ, but SH got the wrong kind of wheels for that version. Early Fireflies had the 5 spokes wheels hub, the one shown are for the latest versions! Cheers, jean;
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 16,405 posts
AeroScale: 12,215 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - 01:45 PM GMT+7
Hi Jean

Fear not - the kit includes both styles of wheel hubs.

All the best

Rowan
MS406C
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Landes, France
Joined: May 22, 2008
KitMaker: 95 posts
AeroScale: 82 posts
Posted: Friday, May 24, 2013 - 05:08 AM GMT+7
Ah! I feel released! Cheers, jean.
GastonMarty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 577 posts
AeroScale: 489 posts
Posted: Friday, May 24, 2013 - 10:19 PM GMT+7

The prop blades are pointy and toothpick-like, but it is overall a significant improvement over the Grand Phoenix kit. A replacement prop is available.



If you compare the above image of a Mk I to the similar rear shot of the kit, the dead straightness of the kit's nose top profile doesn't appear prototypical... The rear fuselage also looks a bit deep.

The wings look a lot thinner towards the tips than the hugely thick GP wings, which is of course very good... Otherwise this is pretty much the same quality and accuracy that was common 20 years ago, minus the subject matter...

Gaston



SunburntPenguin
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Australian Capital Territory, Australia
Joined: March 15, 2011
KitMaker: 120 posts
AeroScale: 111 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 25, 2013 - 01:44 AM GMT+7
Wow, all those supposed flaws identified with the aid of one photo of the actual aircraft and one of the kit.

Well done Gaston, yet again you've reduced what looks like a great new kit of the Firefly to something that should never have left the factory.

TheModeller
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: March 01, 2010
KitMaker: 127 posts
AeroScale: 61 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 25, 2013 - 05:55 AM GMT+7
Gastons predeliction for drawing conclusions about a kits worth based on other peoples pictures is well known.

Surprisingly he's not mentioned the kits windscreen which, at least to me, looks very odd, being both 'squished' and 'pinched' at the same time. We all know how Gaston micro-calibrated eyes usually pick up on distortions in cockpit glass, he's claimed in the past its one (?!) of his pet-hates, remember the furore he kicked-off about the 1/50th Tamiya IL-2 canopy?, and the AM TBM with its narrow glass?

That said, I shall wait on the arrival of the actual plastic before commenting further. Not a trick the Butcher-of-Quebec is aware of!
Harvs73
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Queensland, Australia
Joined: January 23, 2012
KitMaker: 66 posts
AeroScale: 47 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 25, 2013 - 03:34 PM GMT+7
Does this mean the (apparently) much maligned GP kit is better?



Always love a good attempt at kit assassination when you have no evidence.

PS. This is MY model and not someone else's that I am posting without permission.
AussieReg
#007
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Victoria, Australia
Joined: June 09, 2009
KitMaker: 5,327 posts
AeroScale: 3,397 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 25, 2013 - 10:14 PM GMT+7

Quoted Text

Otherwise this is pretty much the same quality and accuracy that was common 20 years ago, minus the subject matter..



Oh dear, how could Fairey have got this so incredibly wrong? Surely all they had to do was purchase the MPM kit and upscale it !

GastonMarty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 577 posts
AeroScale: 489 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 25, 2013 - 10:36 PM GMT+7
Quote, D Harvey: "Does this mean the (apparently) much maligned GP kit is better?"

-----------------------------------------

In a word: No!

Whatever it may seem I said, the Special Hobby kit is still a better-looking kit... The nose curve could probably be easily sanded, or corrected somehow.

The GP nose is much worse than SH in many other areas, notably the very peculiar side intakes. And I did try to build the GP kit (the thick wings wore me down before I wore them down)...

On the other hand, the Aires resin interior of the GP kit is incredible, and the GP kit is well worth getting just for the resin interior and wheel well parts alone (especially if they can be made to fit the SH kit).

To give one example of why I am wary of Special Hobby, consider their beautiful-looking (in the box) Albacore, which differs from the real aircraft by having almost no tapering on the cowling, compared to the deep tapering of the real aircraft's cowl... Clearly the pattern maker had never once laid eyes on an Albacore...

Another example: Their G-55 seemed a great and fairly accurate kit, besides the canopy I could easily replace. But it went together like an absolute pig, with a nose that veered off to the right as you clicked the wings on... It had something to do with ill-fitting (I should say terminally incompatible) resin you had to engineer for hours to get the wings and fuselage to fly in close formation...:

[/URL]

So let's just say I view their stuff with considerable caution... I did keep their Fa-223, as it looks like a fun build...

Gaston



Harvs73
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Queensland, Australia
Joined: January 23, 2012
KitMaker: 66 posts
AeroScale: 47 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 26, 2013 - 02:30 AM GMT+7
Hmm, having MADE the GP kit I found that there were only a few bits that needed replacement - namely the prop/spinner and maybe the wheels.



As for the intakes, what exactly is wrong with them? The images of the real ones below look close enough to the GP kit to me, maybe a little more on the top of the intake to give it a little rounding but not essential. The GP kit intakes also look similar to the SH kit. But then I actually finish models....





Harvs73
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Queensland, Australia
Joined: January 23, 2012
KitMaker: 66 posts
AeroScale: 47 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 26, 2013 - 02:38 AM GMT+7
I forgot to add, I recently bought two more of the AZ/GP kits after checking out the SH kit as well. As the AZ/GP kit was around $10 cheaper and you still needed to replace the prop/spinner on the SH kit, I figured I would buy the AZ/GP kit again. I will definitely be buying the SH Firefly Mk V kit when it comes out though.
MrMtnMauler
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Washington, United States
Joined: January 15, 2011
KitMaker: 224 posts
AeroScale: 223 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 26, 2013 - 12:23 PM GMT+7
I absolutely agree with you David, the kit intakes as well as the rest of it is a fine rendition not deserved of this "typical" criticism. To tell you the truth, I am so weary of the ridiculous posts about millimeter accuracy based on a 70 year old photo or whatever non scientific, engineering or otherwise credible evidence is a joke. I hope to add this kit to my growing collection soon. Take care and thanks for listening.

Jim

scvrobeson
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United States
Joined: May 17, 2011
KitMaker: 65 posts
AeroScale: 44 posts
Posted: Monday, May 27, 2013 - 05:43 PM GMT+7
I wonder if it would be possible to use the resin interior out of the AZ/GP kit for the new Special Hobby one? The pictures I've seen so far for the Special Hobby one don't really leave me floored, especially with all of that glass. But the interior from my AZ kit is amazing, so I wonder if some kind of cross-kitting could work for it?



Matt
EdgarBrooks
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: June 03, 2006
KitMaker: 397 posts
AeroScale: 384 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - 01:26 AM GMT+7
I can't speak for all, of course, but I imagine that there'll be a considerable number of modellers who'll be totally thankful that a kit doesn't match a photo taken with a wide-angle lens.
Edgar
GastonMarty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 577 posts
AeroScale: 489 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - 02:05 AM GMT+7

Quoted Text

Hmm, having MADE the GP kit I found that there were only a few bits that needed replacement - namely the prop/spinner and maybe the wheels.

As for the intakes, what exactly is wrong with them? The images of the real ones below look close enough to the GP kit to me, maybe a little more on the top of the intake to give it a little rounding but not essential. The GP kit intakes also look similar to the SH kit. But then I actually finish models....




Barracuda offers a vacu-form canopy as well, and that is a worthy addition.

The real intakes in your photos look longer than the kit, though I coud not figure out what was amiss to fix it on mine.¸Probably it is just as well to leave them alone, which is what I planned on doing until confronting the thick wings: If you showed it from the same angle, it would jump out that the real intakes are slightly slimmer/longer...

Edgar, wide angle lens push the edges of the photo outward, thus away from the subject in the center, and it's at the edges that most distortions occur... So cheap wide-angle lenses with no zoom are the best for capturing the shapes of large objects, especially from a fair distance... Modern Airshow photos often use long zoom lenses to capture the aircraft close-up while in flight, and because of this modern photos are often less reliable than old cheap cameras, because of all the big thick lenses in the newer cameras: Slightly "Bent" banana fuselages etc... Sometimes they turn out good, but old photos are typically more reliable, unless "formatted" to fit neatly within a book's text or margins, which does happen...

Gaston
Harvs73
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Queensland, Australia
Joined: January 23, 2012
KitMaker: 66 posts
AeroScale: 47 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - 03:10 AM GMT+7

Quoted Text



The real intakes in your photos look longer than the kit, though I could not figure out what was amiss to fix it on mine.¸Probably it is just as well to leave them alone, which is what I planned on doing until confronting the thick wings: If you showed it from the same angle, it would jump out that the real intakes are slightly slimmer/longer...


Gaston



Aaah - No. The intakes on the GP kit are not short, they are level with the third exhaust stack from the front on the real one, the GP kit and pretty much the same for the SH kit. If anything the SH kit looks a fraction long on the intakes as they appear to go to about number two stack, but this is nothing serious or hard to fix if you are really that desperate to 'improve' it.

If you compare the location of the side intakes in comparison to the nose intake, the side intakes proportion out about the same loc on both the GP/AZ and SH kits. Once again, I have a finished kit in hand to compare it with the original images. I am also not going to insult people by attempting to take photos of this to prove it. Take it or leave it but in MY opinion both kits look good compared to the original.
EdgarBrooks
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: June 03, 2006
KitMaker: 397 posts
AeroScale: 384 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - 02:18 PM GMT+7

Quoted Text

Edgar, wide angle lens push the edges of the photo outward,


You might be able to con younger members with your gobbledygook, but please don't try it on someone who's spent 60 years in photography, there's a good boy. Photograph a person's face, so that it fills a wide-angle lens, and you'll get a smack in the mouth for (apparently) pulling their nose forward, and making them look like Schnozzle Durante. It's also cheap lenses which will give you pin-cushion, or barrel, distortion, not the better-quality items.
GastonMarty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 577 posts
AeroScale: 489 posts
Posted: Monday, August 26, 2013 - 09:29 PM GMT+7

Quoted Text

Hmm, having MADE the GP kit I found that there were only a few bits that needed replacement - namely the prop/spinner and maybe the wheels.



As for the intakes, what exactly is wrong with them? The images of the real ones below look close enough to the GP kit to me, maybe a little more on the top of the intake to give it a little rounding but not essential. The GP kit intakes also look similar to the SH kit. But then I actually finish models....








Just saw this old thread linked on "Roy's rants"...

Comparing the kits from a similar angle brings out more useful comparisons... About the intakes---and everything else on the Grand Phoenix kit (ignore the canopy)----: Note the strange side intakes and their taper or angle, the spinner and general nose proportions, and, most notably to me, the wingtip thickness: Wingtip thickness is even more awful with the actual kit in hand than it appears here (the builder here probably improved on the kit), and is the #1 issue why I bin, give away or sell most limited run kits I encounter:

(Model by "Busdriver" on Britmodeller)


I hope one day the limited run makers figure out how the actual wingtip of an aircraft is designed... Unfortunately, quite a few mainstream kits are just as bad: The Hasegawa Hurricane is off enough to be a real problem on such a thick wing, and the new Italeri kit is even worse... Thick wings are worse, because any exaggeration affects the taper of the whole wing, and it quickly falls into the cartoonish...

Gaston
This post was removed.
Jessie_C
_VISITCOMMUNITY
British Columbia, Canada
Joined: September 03, 2009
KitMaker: 6,541 posts
AeroScale: 5,839 posts
Posted: Monday, August 26, 2013 - 09:43 PM GMT+7
Once again you're trying to convince us that a photo taken with an unknown camera and an unknown lens and reproduced by unknown means an unknown number of times can be accepted as though it's an accurate representation of the shapes of the real aircraft. Then you take a photo of someone else's model without their permission, also taken with an unknown camera and an unknown lens and reproduced by unknown means an unknown number of times and very obviously taken at a different angle to the subject and expect the conclusions you draw from comparing the two pictures to be meaningful.
bdanie6
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Florida, United States
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 615 posts
AeroScale: 459 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - 08:55 AM GMT+7
You know, I love this site. I come here 3 or 4 times a day just to read what's going on and what people are doing in the a/c modeling world. I contribute what I can and comment when I am moved to.People agree or disagree with me, and that's cool. It's called human interaction. HOWEVER-(love that word) when someone becomes so annoying that just seeing their name above a post makes one leave, the kind people who run this site provided a solution to that also. Just look for the "hide user" button and click on that. For me-no more Gaston-EVER!
The only time I am subject to his "opinions" is if someone quotes from him.
Easiest way to deal with him-shunning
Later
PS-never saw the GP kit and looking forward to Special Hobbies
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 16,405 posts
AeroScale: 12,215 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - 02:57 PM GMT+7
Hi Bruce

I'm afraid I can't help but think of my late father when I struggle in a review over the accuracy or otherwise of a kit, or read endless navel-gazing threads tearing a new kit to shreds. He'd have simply said "Just build it and enjoy it, or don't build it - it's up to you. Whichever, it's only six-penny-worth of plastic, so get over it!". LOL!

All the best

Rowan
cinzano
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Indiana, United States
Joined: January 13, 2009
KitMaker: 419 posts
AeroScale: 378 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - 05:51 PM GMT+7

Quoted Text

He'd have simply said "Just build it and enjoy it, or don't build it - it's up to you. Whichever, it's only six-penny-worth of plastic, so get over it!". LOL!



I like that!

Cheers,
Fred
Harvs73
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Queensland, Australia
Joined: January 23, 2012
KitMaker: 66 posts
AeroScale: 47 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 07:01 AM GMT+7
Gaston, do you even read other peoples posts? I already mentioned the side intakes needing a bit of rounding on the top. I have also mentioned that the prop/spinner needs to be replaced as well as possibly the wheels.

The wing tips suffer from the standard limited run kit in that the wings need the trailing edges etc thinned. I have not done this on the GP kit that I have made as I could not be bothered but it is simple to do.

The general nose proportions appear ok to me but once again I have the made model sitting next to me to make comparisons against the images.

For the build of my GP Firefly go to the link below:

http://www.aussiemodeller.com.au/pages/Gallery/Aircraft_E-H/Harvey_FireflyMk1.html

For a review of the SH Firefly Mk 1 by Steve Long go to the link below:

http://www.aussiemodeller.com.au/pages/Reviews/acft%20kit/Long_SHFireflyMk1.html

For a review of the SH Firefly Mk 4/5/6 by Steve Long go to the link below:

http://www.aussiemodeller.com.au/pages/Reviews/acft%20kit/Long_SHFireflyMkV.html

I am currently in the process of SLOWLY making the AZ/GP Firefly Mk 1 kit and the SH Mk 4/5/6 kit (as an RAN AS.6). If you would like to check these out then go to the forum link below:

http://www.aussiemodeller.com.au/forum/viewforum.php?f=28