I dont think this kit is suitable for first time modellers,a lot of delicate parts.

David R Lentz, Columbus, Ohio, USA (Tuesday, 6 August, 2024) I fondly remember as a boy assembling, painting, decalling, etc., numerous Airfix kits, all in 1:72nd-scale (I am poor at maths; a consistent scale simplified my grasp of proportion, ratio, etc.): the Supermarine Spitfire RAF fighter, Albion’s airborne thoroughbred turned Pegasus-charger (to my regret, I cannot recall which mark; I remember it had a five-bladed propeller, which I had found distinctive. I greatly delighted in the legend in progress of the de Havilland Mosquito Light Bomber, long renowned as “the wooden wonder”; regardless of the hour had they raced across Germany’s roiling, grey skies deep into the turbulence of the Nazi regime on some secret mission. The AVRO Lancaster, the Handley-Page Halifax, and the Short Stirling, the RAF’s Heavy Bombers. I quite enjoyed the tow tractor with its train of laden bomb trolleys; they are why I had departed from my usual preference to configure them airborne in the assembly when I built the long æroplane aground, displaying it undergoing servicing prior to a nocturnal air strike somewhere in eastern Europe). Also, the Vickers Wellington Medium Bomber, recognised at once for its geodesic physical construction. The Hurricane, the Tempest, and the Typhoon: Hawker’s doughty fighters. I then had not quite understood why some of the smaller parts felt so crude of design or molding; and why the entire vehicle had felt so poorly detailed overall. Now, the North American B-25B Mitchell USAAF medium bomber “Doolittle Tokyo Raider” certainly has my attention! (As have several others: that eye-opening 1) Mosquito, 2) Spitfire Mk.IXc and VIII; 3) Grumman F6F-5 Hellcat USN/USMC/FAA carrier-based fighter. I especially anticipate 4) a kit in this scale of new slide-mold of the North American Aviation P-51D/H/K Mustang USAAF air superiority fighter.) Moreover, I wish that Hong Kong Models would issue a re-working of their B-25J kit to an earlier B-25B variant, especially with field modifications to represent the aircraft on this top-secret, early-war mission (as well as including alternate parts, decals, markings, indications in the assembly instructions, etc., for the B-25C/D/G versions; such flexibility would engender repeat sales in the near term). For my project (well, one of them!), I would add to the above 1) the Accurate Miniatures 1:48th-scale kit of the B-25B with the “Doolittle Tokyo Raiders” modifications, markings, etc; 2) the Atlantis re-boxing of the Aurora B-25 kit (I do not know what iteration), which they advertise as in 1:64th-scale (it actually is in 1:67.7th-scale-well, that is the 1950s box-scale for you!), Minicraft’s fairly generic B-25 kit in 1:144th scale, and round a dozen more in 1:200th scale from Trumpeter. All these to fashion a forced perspective ærial diorama (FPÆD) . . . . Also, please ask Airfix that they show us photographs of the finished model, NOT of the actual aircraft. In making a selection, we want to see the product: that is, the kit assembled, painted, completed, to a reasonable replica. Thank you.

Thinking of getting myself one, ty for the review.

Your just high! See people get up here an take a couple bong hits an then they think there the one video maker an then they post! ( Warning never get high an post videos people will hate you the rest of your life but me I'll be nice by reporting an blocking you so I don't have to ever suffer through another dumb voice

Never built a kit from this company,look forward to your build.I built the FROG version of this fighter and enjoyed it.

Only if you're Aussie 😂😂😂

Hi. Nice build. Off the top of your head, can you remember how much weight you added in the radio compartment? Many thanks.

I throw the boxes away and I don’t think that the box is important at all. Are you building the kit, or the box?

It's not true

Neat

Nice one mate 😉👌

seeing the real thing up close was pretty spooky

Which kit is it?

Its Jetfire

I do not miss working on those. Especially in the tail section. Imagine having to crawl through a crawl space barely bigger than you, all the way to the back. Even worse if it’s a hot day.

Coleção espetacular! Parabéns Amigo🌟👏👊

Ficou muito lindo🌟👏

C5 Galaxy

Nothing more deady than grandpa buff. He has some stories to tell.

More formidable than ever!

MDF church, not plastic. Thats different.

Resto mod?😳 Jman

🤝👍

Could have easily rescued 13 Marines...under Trump. God bless the USA!

From Kabul ❤😂

Personally I don’t think that the Valiant was a failure. She was an interim insurance policy if Victor or Vulcan failed. Designed for high altitude deployment where she would not get roughed up by turbulence, moving to low altitude sorties was her undoing. Buffeting would weaken her primary structure, exposing it to stresses beyond her design specification.

One more point on the P 51 - the main wings were very carefully puttied up (filled) and sanded off to give the laminar flow wing an absolutely smooth surface, it was then PAINTED silver - it was not a natural metal finish. I am not sure if they carried this practice on throughout the war but it was certainly carried out initially.

A point to note on the P 51D Mustang - I noticed that you have filled and smoothed the seam between the upper engine cowl/covers - They are actually two separate parts on the real thing so you would actually see a seem along this 'joint'. Might save you a bit of work in the future (that also comes up on the Bf/Me109 series - the rear fuselage was assembled in two halves on the real aircraft so you would see a thin seem along the centre-line upper and lower rear fuselage),

Just got to the bit about the decals - I actually work for a decal company (for MANY years!) and the varnish is critical! As a modeller myself, my aim is to make the varnish tight around the image/marking whilst giving enough coverage to keep the decal stable on application. I have produced decals which have been sent to Cartograf for printing and they always come back absolutely superb, always tight, crisp and accurate in colour (they do a very nice four colour process for nose art too, a different print process to the usual 'spot-colour' markings for lettering/numbers etc). This looks like one area where Eduard can definitely step up their game as everything else they do is of the highest standard. Their varnish looks very slip-shod, much too wide a margin around the image, could definitely do better!

I have always liked the P 51D and this kit looks outstanding, looks like the loft pile is going to expand again (I really need more spare time in my life, oh, and a LOT more spare cash!).

As you were going through the parts, I didn't see any cameras for the PR version - is that the case? No cameras? Missed opportunity if that's the case, if you're gonna do a PR plane with all that otherwise good interior detail I would have thought it would be a given to include the cameras as they are pretty important on a PR machine . . . It does, however, present an interesting opportunity to scratch build some, hmmmmm!

Really good model and amazing build from you!!!

"Sally-B", Europe's only flying B-17...

A little note for you: If you look at the Revell decal sheet, it states 'Made in Italy', that is where Cartograf are based and , I believe, they printed these decals, very good quality. For some reason I don't think Revell want you to know who printed them, Airfix don't seem to be bothered. I think putting the Cartograf name on the sheet is a good selling point, most modellers are aware the Carto produce amongst the best decals on the market (I work in the trade producing decal artwork for kits soze I know a bit about these things, hush-hush!)

Also built the above mentioned Academy kit and can concur that it is very good for the money with very nice surface detail and very affordable.

I have built the Revell T-Bolt and I was pretty impressed by it as, I'm sure you know, Revell can vary enormously in tooling quality, very much pot-luck as to what you get (1:32 scale Hurricane from the late 1960s - Aaaaaaagh!). I note in one of the other comments that Eduard is mentioned - seriously, if you have never built an Eduard kit, do give them a try, even the 'basic' weekend kits are outstanding value for money. Not the most expensive but usually come with extra bits for alternate versions, all with exceptional detail, finely engraved panel and riveting, you will drool over the sprues!

I have to say, both kits are extremely good with the Airfix offering coming out ahead with the comprehensive and very easy to follow, detailed instructions. A couple of things I think are better on the Revell B 17 are the engines, to me, more representative and detailed than the Airfix kit and the nostalgic 'silver' plastic Revell used on this one, reminds me of an Airfix B 25 I made waaaay back in my early model years (I think I was around 10 at the time, still a LOT to learn at that early stage!). Very good idea to compare the two similar kits, you give the modeller a pretty good idea what strengths and weaknesses are in both offerings. Something to note: The Revell kit is tooled in such a way they can produce the F and early G, the Airfix is specifically for the late G with staggered waist gun positions.

I recently bought this one myself, an outstanding kit and very representative of the very good standards being achieved by Airfix these days. It's on my 'to do' pile as we speak (what dedicated modeller doesn't have a steadily increasing heap of cool models waiting construction?). Thanks for the break-down, see you on the other side of the build.

Excellent!

Stunner! Gotta love Eduard kits! Lovely work.

So cool man and good codeo