MPM 1/72 Fairey Battle - first impressions
Sten E
Fairey Battle. The first impression is that it is quite a mixed bag.
Pros:
Absolutely beautiful resin details; interior - both pilot's and rear
gunner's compartments - propeller boss, exhausts, radiator insert,
carburettor intake, landing light inserts, wing mounted mg barrel and rear
Vickers K mg.
Spot on wing span. Landing gear well interiors provided. Very nice
restrained engraved surface detailing. Good decals.
Cons:
No provision for open wing bomb bays. Rear of the radiator solid. No
provision for the bomb aimer's clear panel under the central fuselage, just
an engraved panel. Wing tips slightly too rounded at the rear quarters
(easily sanded to shape). Fuselage about 5 mm too long (seems evenly
distributed along the length). Nose side profile slightly too flat between
the windscreen and the propeller. Canopy is terrible! The movable portion
over the pilot's cockpit is about 3-4 mm too short and has a couple of extra
frames that I think only was featured on the prototype. Also the top profile
is absolutely flat where it should be slightly curved when looking from the
side. There is no provision for an open position, neither for the pilot's
cockpit nor for the rear gunner. This I am not too sure about, but I also
think the canopy sides slope too much making the canopy a bit too narrow at
the top. The fuselage top decking is slightly too wide at the bottom.
I must admit that I am disappointed so far. The most obvious fault, the
canopy, can probably be fixed by replacing it with the Falcon vacformed
canopy, but since it is designed to fit the (even more inaccurate) Airfix
Battle it will involve some delicate plastic surgery.
Anybody else have more observations on this kit?
--
Sten Ekedahl
IPMS Sweden #0071
IPMS UK #X1621
Graham Boak
Sten E <sten.e...@chello.se> wrote in message
news:8vs6ri$ise$1...@cubacola.tninet.se...
> I have just spent a couple of hours this weekend examining the new MPM
1/72
> Fairey Battle. The first impression is that it is quite a mixed bag.
Look for the recent Scale Aircraft Modelling with Paul Lloyds rework of the
1/48th kit - all the corrections apply to the 1/72nd MPM kit.
Sten E
faults, but it seems the resin interior parts in this kit might fit better
than those in the 1/48th kit. Or...
--
Sten Ekedahl
IPMS Sweden #0071
IPMS UK #X1621
Graham Boak <gra...@boak98.freeserve.co.uk> wrote...
Sten E
April/2000, to 1/72nd scale. These drawings are not 100% accurate, but
probably the best available. Further examining of the MPM Battle against
these drawings has revealed the following results:
The suspected too long fuselage isn't too bad, at least I can live with it.
But the tailplane is way too small! The span is about 5 mm too short and
about 2 mm are missing at the leading edge and 4(!) mm at the trailing edge,
the latter is also of the wrong shape when seen from the top. The rear edge
of the rudder is too vertical, it should be angled a few degrees forward.
This can be fixed by some filing. The top decking between the pilot and the
rear gunner is too high and rounded in cross section. I should be about 2.5
mm lower and a lot more flat on the top. This unfortunately has to be
completely scratchbuilt. The bad canopy is even worse than I first thought!
when seen from the side the top of the long canopy should gradually slope to
the rear towards the fairing under which the rear mg is stored. The kit
canopy however carries the straight top line way too far aft which, in
combination with the too high top decking, almost produces a distinct kink
over the rear gunner, from which the canopy slopes steeply to the rear
fairing which in turn is also too steep. Nothing like the gently sloping
line of the full size Battle. Also the low fuselage windows along the lower
edge of the canopy at the rear gunners position are concave instead of
straight and when fitted on the fuselage stick out like a pair of small
wings! These faults will take some major plastic surgery to correct. Why oh
why couldn't MPM get it right, especially when they have included a small
side view which shows the correct profile of the canopy, on the top of each
page of the instruction sheet! I know there are several incorrect Battle
drawings in circulation but so much have been written in the modelling press
over the years about the inaccuracies of these drawings and for that matter
the ancient Airfix kit, so a lot more could be expected from this kit.
Well, I guess I'll have to concentrate on the MPM Blenheim instead. It is a
lot more accurate and can be built almost OOB. But it is such a pity with
all those nice resin details in the Battle kit...
Kari A Lumppio
>Well, I guess I'll have to concentrate on the MPM Blenheim instead. It is a
>lot more accurate and can be built almost OOB.
Yes MPM Blenheim can be built OOB, but accurate it isn't. The engine cowlings
are about the only accurate thing in the kit. If you want outline accuracy the
winner is still the ancient Frog/Novo/whatever kit.
>But it is such a pity with all those nice resin details in the Battle kit...
>--
>Sten Ekedahl
Kari
Sten E
Well to be honest, after this bad experience with the Battle I haven't dared
to check the Blenheim for accuracy.
--
Sten Ekedahl
IPMS Sweden #0071
IPMS UK #X1621
Kari A Lumppio <klum...@kosh.hut.fi> wrote...
> Tjänare!
>
> >Well, I guess I'll have to concentrate on the MPM Blenheim instead. It is
a
> >lot more accurate and can be built almost OOB.
>
> Yes MPM Blenheim can be built OOB, but accurate it isn't. The engine
cowlings
> are about the only accurate thing in the kit. If you want outline accuracy
the
> winner is still the ancient Frog/Novo/whatever kit.
>
> >But it is such a pity with all those nice resin details in the Battle
kit...
> >--
> >Sten Ekedahl
>
> Kari
>
Stefan P. Banaszak
kit?
Bill Banaszak, MFE
Sten E
is too large. Wings are much too narrow with bomb bays in the wrong place,
fin contours are off and the canopy is useless. In short, it is even worse
than the new MPM kit.
--
Sten Ekedahl
IPMS Sweden #0071
IPMS UK #X1621
Stefan P. Banaszak <tec...@redrose.net> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:3A2AD4...@redrose.net...
Sten E
--
Sten Ekedahl
IPMS Sweden #0071
IPMS UK #X1621
David Fleming <dave.flem...@dial.pipex.com> wrote...
<snip>
> Having seen both, I reckon the MPM one will be easier.
>
>
> Dave
>
> " to err is human - to really screw up, you need a computer"
David Fleming
<tec...@redrose.net> wrote:
>Aside from the nose contours being off, what's wrong with the old Airfix
>kit?
>
Everything! Wing, fuselage, tail, canopy are all wrong. The kit was based
on the wrong drawing, sipplied by Fairey's PR rather than Tech dept. It was
a drawing of the proposed design, but notthe final one. Having seen both, I
reckon the MPM one will be easier.
Dave
" to err is human - to really screw up, you need a computer"
SPAM REDUCTION ADDRESS IN USE
Remove 'NOSPAM' from e-mail address to reply