Timothy Huff

Thanks, that was what I was driving at. The fabric on the Wellington I saw was a little different, with more of the coloured dope bleeding through the fabric, but as in your pictures, a great deal of the natural fibre colour remained on the inside. I also have parts of Wellington geodetics, and in places the dope has gone clean through the linen and marked the alloy behind. I expect this occurred if pressure was used with the brush when it was applied, and whilst much of the linen could flex, where it was in front of the alloy members it could not, and therefore the dope went right through...

The brick red is used for the doped fabric interior of the Wellington. I think painting it a neat brick-red is incorrect anyway, as the fabric was only doped on the exterior surface, and so there is plenty of natural colour linen to be seen when viewed from the inside at close range. I would suggest painting it with a lightened brick red, then applying patches of the darker neat colour, before painting the geodetics. Note that geodetics visible from the outside were painted black (usually, but not always)

What a brilliant idea! I look forward to seeing more box-art themed models!

If I may, that's rather an old-fashioned business model. It makes sense before (say) 2000, when other means of producing plastic parts for kits did not really exist, but it's now that such low volume production is possible to test kits for marketing or assembly testing, it's just nuts to say "all we do is volume production" and therefore lose the ability to speculatively produce kits using different technology (ie 3d printing) to assess how well a model may do prior to volume production. Essentially you're stating that Airfix won't explore other kit types because they've always done volume production. I'm saying that there's no reason why they can't continue to do volume production, but ALSO use different production techniques to produce "Limited edition" (as it were) kits, to test the waters, prior to going to all the tooling costs of making an injection mould. I think that the latter is smarter, than the former. The more flexible approach provides both useful data, as well as breathing some new life into the type of kits they make, and the detail within them, because the scope of scale of the partial model is more conducive to detail than of the same subject modelled as a whole. EG, a 6" high RAF gun-turret is something you might like to model, but a 3/8ths" (as part of a whole aircraft) offers little such scope for detail....

Hi, I quite appreciate that as you state, injection moulded models are cheaper for any given model, compared with 3d printing, however, this only holds true when there are volume sales, as the tooling costs of making the moulds are extremely expensive. I was suggesting that cast or 3d printed resin was cheaper for a short production run, such as one might make for a speculative model, for example where the model-making public have not had the chance to build a new type of model. Put another way, in the absence of a marketing data, 3d printed or resin parts allows the market to be tested without the considerable financial out-lay required for tooling an injection mould. Airfix have been making the same type of model, namely modelling the entirety of aircraft tanks or ships for 50+ years, and the scale of those (whole) models determines the achievable detail in the kit. What I'm suggesting is that modern techniques, it should be possible to cheaply test the market for a new type of kit, based on specific parts of what would otherwise be a huge model if treated as a whole aircraft/vehicle kit. Suggestions: 1. Cut-away of Bismark's main armament turret with below decks magazine etc. 2. Various RAF gun-turrets, FN5, FN5a, FN20, FN50, FN4, and various Boulton Paul turrets 3. Cockpits (possibly nose as well?) of aircraft, Spitfire, Wellington, Hampden, Lanc, Mossie, B17, 109e. He111, Ju87, Bf110 etc. 4. Aircraft lifts from carriers, tank-turrets (cut away) and so forth. The common theme of these being having a much more detailed model, possibly with moving-parts, and, where possible, allowing other hobbies to make use of these models for other purposes - such as the radio-control flying hobby to make use of suitably scaled turrets - I suggest 1/6th scale - on flying models, with the initial market testing of these models being kept nice and cheap via not going straight to injection-moulded parts. I trust that makes more sense now?

I second this, oil-paints need to be thinned nearly to the viscosity of water. It sounds as if the OP was using it way too thick, which might cause it simply to lift out of the panel line without adhering to it as he experienced. Personally I don't think one needs to get specialist washes, regular oil-paints will do the job just fine of correctly thinned. Prior practice on unused parts or old assembled kits will help, it's not easy to gauge it correctly first attempt, although once you've the knack of it, it's not hard.

I appreciate that you did not expressly, discuss injection-moulding. That said, the statement you did make on the lack of relative sales not justifying the type of model, is in fact implicitly predicated (but unstated) on the tooling costs being the normal costs of injection models. So once you're using a production-method without the enormous tooling costs of injection-moulding, then it may become feasible to produce kits with small, or "as required" production runs. At which point, the mathematics of at what number of sales a model produced in full, or in part, via 3d-printed parts changes from that of the case of a more orthodox injection-moulded kit. I don't think, that with a new treatment of aircraft models, one can easily forecast how well such a new model type will do, if such a forecast is based on a different type of model. In the 1940's, models were hand-made in wood, but with the advent of post-war plastic models, and entirely new mass-market hobby was born. In other words, the advent of the physical kit, drove the new hobby. My point is that we have a generation of modellers who are retiring, who were perhaps plastic-modellers in the 1960's and 70's. After 50 years making 1/72 (complete) models of aircraft, it's possible that they may, if provided with decent large scale interior models of favoured subjects, adopt making such models with some enthusiasm, just as some wooden-model makers went over to plastic in the 1950's and 60's. We don't know until it's tried, but it's an error not to innovate in my view, especially if the tooling costs are so low in this case, relatively speaking.

I agree with Ratch that if injection-moulding used for aircraft interior models, it's not reasonable to suppose there would be an adequate market, although for some subjects that might in time build. However, with the advent of, and ever increasing performance/lowering cost of 3d printing, there's no reason for Airfix to continue with only offering injection-moulded models. This is a very similar enthusiasm for internal areas of the partial aircraft eg a Spitfire cockpit, or Lancaster tail turret etc, so evidently there's some interest in the notion of larger-scale partial models such as the OP describes in this thread.

Hi, I confess I'm a little surprised. It seems to me that there are practical limits, even with after-market PE parts, to how much detail can be incorporated into structures such as cockpits or turrets etc, or indeed seen through "perspex" canopies at the typical scales used to represent whole aircraft. By instead viewing the aircraft more from an interior point of view, and at a much larger scale, it becomes possible to model, in very great detail, portions of the aircraft in a wholly new way. That no other manufacturer is offering such models is I think, and with the greatest of respect to all involved, something of a missed-opportunity to create new and interesting takes on well loved subjects. It is, I know, something of a mental adjustment to see an aircraft - say a Lancaster - as a series of large scale model of individual crew positions, rather than the whole aircraft. But I think it's worth looking at, precisely because no other manufacturer has done this. The reason is I think obvious, the tooling costs of injection-moulded parts are considerable, and for uncertain sales, a risk most manufacturers will not wish to take. However, once 3d printed parts are used instead, then that financial objection is no longer valid....... I'm delighted to be able to debate this with you chaps, I attach some stills of what's possible even by my fairly amateur standards. PS apologies for the post of mine above, I'd tried replying and my pc locked-up somehow, didn't think the post had gone through successfully. General view of interior without cupola fitted Working collimating gunsight (4.5v, built in collaboration with Tim Noack)

Many thanks for replying. I was really asking you all whether, were a kit of distinct crewed area of an aircraft available to model at a much larger scale than Airfix do normally, if this is something you might want to build? My thinking is that Airfix have limited themselves to the typical scales, and whole aircraft, for 50 years or more, and that exploration of a new format/scale, especially when it requires next to no tooling costs, is worthwhile. So a wholly new type of kit, might be of some interest? It could be extended to the footplate of steam locomotives, to (moving) engines such as the Merlin, to crew position models on the B17/Lanc/Halifax etc. or the turret of HMS Hood and so forth. These are all subjects which could be addressed with 3d printed SLS nylon parts, screwed together with small machine-screws, with multiple moving parts. (SLS Nylon readily accepting threads cut with small taps in pin-vices. Plainly such a kit would require some extra tools, but the material is well-suited to moving parts with minimal end-play. I'd be reasonably confident that an engine with moving parts would be well within the scope of what's possible. Prior to designing this FN5 turret, I'd not made a kit since boyhood over 40 years ago, and taught myself CAD, using an Airbrush, vac-forming and more besides during the course of the project, so it requires patience but little expertise to build and paint, and of course the average modeller would mot have to learn CAD or vac-forming.

Thanks. Out of curiosity, why do you think turret-kits would be not interesting to Airfix? The way I see it, it would create a whole new range of possible subjects, which could extend to cockpits and other crew-stations. There must be thousands upon thousands of modellers, or erstwhile modellers who'd like to model "grandad's" turret, cockpit nav-position as a reminder to their own kids. Because the models were 3d printed, rather than injection-moulded, there'd be no significant tooling costs, and no need to carry large-stocks, as such kits could be printed more on an "as required" basis. Furthermore, especially at the larger scale of 1:3.7 there's ample scope for working interior lights and the gunsight, as well as electric and/or pneumatic elevation/traverse of the turrets, this would potentially allow Airfix to move into new territory (both in subject and means of kit production) with virtually no up-front costs, If I were them, I'd at least consider it carefully. There is an additional possible market here, with radio-control modellers wanting to fit turrets to models, the quality of which currently is fairly poor. 1/6th or 1/10th scale would be optimal for that market. The Wellington is currently stalled as the small internal fittings in the geodetics have proven exceedingly expensive to produce. Until I can solve that issue, the whole build method remains unviable, unfortunately.

I've written to Airfix a couple of times over the years asking about the possibility of them creating a number of models of wartime RAF gun-turrets for the principle RAF 4 engined, and twin engined bombers. I've built a pair myself at 1:3.7 scale, for the front and rear turrets of a Mk 1C Wellington. Predominantly made of 3d-printed SLS Nylon, largely held together with M1 and M1.6 machine-screws, these FN5's (built by Frazer Nash) took about 6 years in all to draw and make. I was wondering, if there was enthusiasm here for a range of turrets, I suggest in 1:3.7 scale, and 1:6 scale, whether Airfix would consider offering such a range of turret-models? Finished FN5 turrets, front and rear - YouTube new MKIII gunsight with working reticule - YouTube moving rams - YouTube