FAAMAN

Nice finish, great riveting work, I especially like the O/Drab finish. One thing, the replacement rear fuselage of 42-97880 depicted by your build was from an earlier production block B-17G-15-BO (42-31405) without staggered waist gun positions. Same error as Airfix's original B-17G from 1962, "Miss Lace" 's waist positions weren't staggered either.

Airfix do seem to have missed the bus with many modellers of "floaty things", regardless of scale, and significant anniversaries they could've been marketed with, ie 100th anniversary of Dreadnaught's launch, 100th anniversary of WW1 (start or finish), 100th anniversary of HMAS Sydney battering SMS Emden at Cocos, 100th anniversary of Battle of Jutland, the misses just goes on and on. It does take time to produce a kit of any ilk, so I think you should look for a 2021/22 date at the earliest for a kit of the new QE carriers, I just want one in 1/600 scale as I do not touch 1/350, wrong scale, too expensive, did I say wrong scale ?? I don't hold out much hope, one way or the other (one scale or the "other"), as I've sent MANY emails to Airfix with either canned responses or no response at all.

Do you mean the A4-B? I know a few people are very rude about that kit but I like it.... Problem is that it's a very specific early war Vietnam / Argentine version and simply not the version used in movie. The current Airfix isn't even appropriate to hang a couple of bullpups on or do the version John McCain flew. I'm happy to admit it when I'm proved wrong but I think this will be a restamp of the same box I bought on eBay last year. Peter, the Airfix kit is simply too inaccurate to be even a"B/P/Q" model J-65 powered Skywawk. It's not "rudeness" it's a simple fact. Too much wrong with shapes and basic details that are wrongly represented or completely omitted to be any A-4 let alone, an early A-4. Somewhere around here (Airfix Forum) I left a link to the ATF and a thread I'm writing on correcting this kit with a mass of reference pics and "why" particular things are wrong. Also, the kit suuosedly represents a museum example, with mods that did not exist when operating with the USN at the time of it's combat deployments. John McCain flew a J-52 powered A-4E from Forrestal. The Airfix A-4B simply cannot be used to represent a J-52 powered A-4 of any version. You are far better off with one of the "fat" Fujimi A-4 kits and fix the rear fuselage width and poor details. I hope that VMA131 is correct and Airfix's reboxing a Fujimi kit. By the way, the new Hobby Boss A-4E kit in 1/72 has by my count 116 parts, Hmmmm 😆 Although I think Ratch is correct in saying that from a commercial standpoint an A-4 is an A-4, and they'll use what they've got. Just please not the 1958 A-4A that they used for the original Top Gun model kit, THAT would be very embarrassing. Regards all 😆 FAA 😎 😎

Just saw the Airfix new releases for 2020. New tool Beaufort, Mk.V Spit and Vulcan, just superb!! But what's going on with this new Top Gun movie merchandise releases? Surely Airfix are'nt going to embarrass themselves by re-releasing the old 1958 1/72 tool A-4A kit again as they did with the original Top Gun merchandise releases from the 80's as depicted on the box art (from the original movie) in the new 2020 releases? Secondly, surely they won't try to fob off their very poor and inacurate 1/72 A-4B kit (from 2012) as an Agressor A-4F 'Super Fox" (which has a completely different nose, intakes, exhausts and access panel details) as used in the movie and indeed by Top Gun at the time when compared to an A-4B Skyhawk in the Airfix kit? Thirdly, are Airfix really going to re-release their very old 1/72 Tomcat and F-5A as they did in the 80's for the movie? Both of these kits are far more representitive of the aircraft in Top Gun than either Airfix A-4 kit but they must be getting VERY long in the tooth by now. I won't hold my breath and wait for an answer from an Airfix rep here as they never seem to be interested in concerns we have. Regards all 😆 FAA 😎 😎

Posted this on the Airfix Tribute Forum, but I really should've posted here first though. Hopefully a real Airfix bod will spot this and pass it on, although I have my doubts that any Airfix people will show any interest, This is just so frustrating. You work very hard to get the story straight on a particular subject and what happens . . . . . . More material published to cloud the water further of early A-4 Skyhawk details, in Airfix Model World no less. I know I'm a bit of an A-4 rivet counter and I hope I'm not getting into whinge territory but this makes upcoming info I've researched seem pointless. I've almost finished getting together the info I need to continue the saga of my A-4B, P, Q, detailing thread that will eventually cover A-4A, C and L, along comes a author who hasn't done his research well. The latest AMW May 2019 issue has an article on modding the Airfix A-4B kit into an Argentine FAA A-4C using the Freightdog conversion set. Nothing against Freightdog it's the base Airfix model at fault and they used what they had. Not sure who the author of the article Andy Davies is, but his early A-4 knowledge is negligible even though he states he's used reference photos!!! He has most definitely got aspects of the basic A-4C correct, especially the excellent Freightdog weapons (supplied with the nose mod) and authentic looking camo scheme and Falklands A-4P/C yellow recognition colour blocks (although they were painted on as a recognition mark to avoid being shot at by friendly fire not as tactical markings as stated in the article). You cannot make an accurate A-4B, let alone an accurate A-4C from the Airfix A-4B kit. Because the shape of the kit's nose is so wrong the Freightdog nose in their "C" conversion makes the original shape problem even worse than original. The bottom keel line of the Airfix A-4B's nose is far too "flat", 3mm too low in fact at the tip of the nose (if you're already familiar with this apologies) so when you cut off the kit nose and add the longer nose that conforms to the original kit's "flat" nose shape, the Airfix nose looks even worse as an A-4C's nose is slightly lower than the -B's. The only external difference between an A-4B and an A-4C is the nose, an A-4C nose is nine inches longer than an A-4B nose and has a radar in it compared to the no radar A-4B. This has been commented on by quite a few on other forums, so much for on-line searches. As I just said there is no external difference between an A-4B and A-4C apart from the nose. The author of the article makes the claim "there were many differences between the A-4B and -C fuselage". How can there be any differences between A-4A, B and C fuselages accommodating the same engine and support systems in the same locations built on the same jigs? Apart from the noses (and a lack of refueling probe in all A models) there were no differences at all apart from small in service mods during the life of a particular airframe. In the article, one of the progress photos shows a "used engine oil vent" he's adding to his build, it is exactly the same engine oil vent as every other A-4A, A-4B and A-4C had (some had a square vent the same size), yet he's completely missed the four rear fuselage attachment bolt channels, a detail every A-4 of any marque had. The author is also shown adding a line of rivets/fasteners to the model, where there are none visible on any A-4 as they are flush with the skin, actually machined flush. The Dzus quick release fasteners should be on the forward edge, outboard edge and trailing edge of the port and starboard Forward Engine Access Doors, and most certainly not along the centre line of the fuselage centre keel as that's where the hinges are. While we're on the underside the author, as well as Airfix, has missed the very prominent RAT doors that every single seat A-4 had on the starboard lower nose just ahead of the gun fairing. He's also missed the angle of attack sensors and air conditioner intake/exhaust on the port side of the nose and that the cockpit flood valve is only on the port side under the canopy not both sides. The author talks about adding a catapult bridle on the nose landing gear from the excellent Eduard PE set #73459. What catapult bridle? There isn't one like this in the Eduard set #73459 in front of me, and there isn't one on the A-4 either. The A-4 has two retractable catapult bridal hooks in the main landing gear well on the front of the forward wing spar inboard that retract when the landing gear retracts. Andy makes the comment that the biggest gripe with the kit was the drop tanks? True, but this was only 'one' of the many gripes made on various forums, there is a surprising number of them though (just check out my thread, link below). The Freightdog Charlie tanks are good but they don't have the external welds the real tanks have. A case of raised panel line being correct. The ARMA Hobby (now Brengun) Douglas drop tanks and in flight refueling stores (buddy tanks) are very accurate with correct external detail, you can add some of the Eduard etch and make 'em close to perfect. This Airfix 2012 kit is nowhere near as good as the 1987 'fat' Fujimi early A-4's. Even though the Fujimi kit has it's faults it is far better than the Airfix A-4. As much as the article is to show what can be done at an intermediate modelling level and probably written in a bit of haste to meet a deadline it just makes a joke out of the build when so much wrong is included as 'right'. In writing my A-4 accuracy and detailing post I had to go through masses of info over months sometimes, having to sort out the rubbish from the gems, just like this article has some great info unfortunately combined with inaccurate or completely wrong information. Link to my A-4B, P, Q, thread : airfix-1-72-douglas-a4b-4p-skyhawk-a03029-t47356.html

My references tell me there were never any B-24s in the FAA (Fleet Air Arm) ever. There were many B-24's serving with RAF Costal Command, RAF 100Group and the RAF in the far east. The only serving Navy B-24's were in the USN and post war French Navy. Hopes this helps.

I've had three LMS's close here in Sydney in the past year. Two less than 10 minutes away and one some twenty minutes away. I now have to travel almost 40min and pay huge council parking fees to get to my preferred LMS, a place I've been going to since I was four but being so far away precluding a lot of patronage by meself and 35 min with traffic to my model railway hobby shop. I have to agree there is nothing better than perusing the kits on offer and snapping up the one (or three 😉) that takes your fancy, the best sort of "impulse buying" 😆 😆 😆 😆

It depends on weather Trumpeter remembered this time to include the boot top height in the hull to begin with. They arn't very good with "correct" details in any scale. If the height is there the boot top should be no more than 1mm deep.

I have over 10 thousand songs in my very fat I-Tunes, always on shuffel, from the 60's (no Beatles at all), 70's, 80's etc, masses of Oz rock, everything rock, hard rock, metal, no scream-o though. Listening to lots of Oz group Airbourne, Bad Company, In This Moment, Within Temptation, Volbeat, on and on . . . . just gotta be LOUD 😎 😎 😎

Jim Baumann's one of the most inspiring "small scale" ship modeller's around. I've been following his work for years, you should look up his 1/600 Trooper Mauretainia, simply superb!!! This build is a continuation of his amazing skills, to be even half this good would be an amazing acheivement. This Mary Rose build is exceptional, muesum quality 😎

That's very nicely clean finished 😎

I've said this in other threads, but I'd say Airfix just isn't interested in what we would like, regardless of how popular the kit would be, a 1/600 Queen Elizabeth would be amazing but being only interested in 1/600 I'd never consider a 1/700 scale version nor doubled in size 350th scale kit. Hornby calls the shots, dollars first. So no ships.

That is great work, well done all 'round 😎

I'd like to put in ten votes for a Beaufort 😎 all marks required only in 1/72nd scale please with a great mix of weaponry 😀 No 48th scale as it gets too much of a look in as there is no 72nd Sea Fury or Sea Vixen . . . . . etc ☹️ A nice RAAF DAP Beaufort with twin Wasps and the larger fin would be brilliant 😎 😎 Definitely a "missing link" aircraft in many 72nd scale collections. Just make sure the LIDAR is functioning properly so it doesn't miss ANY details like certain F-4K or A-4B kits we know 😮

Superb build as always, I'll be using this thread as reference for rebuilding my QE 😎 😎

Interesting thread. Nice build and finish 😎 There are limits to what can be acheived with injection moulding even now, and when you discuss a kit, especially from 40+ years ago, you should take into account the capabilities and reference information available then. The 1/600 (ish) Aurora Spee was released in 1958, two years before The AIrfix Hood, Victorious etc. It was a typical Aurora kit, enough said 😉 At least it wasn't the truly terrible 1/800 Lindberg No.871 Snap Tight kit 😮 The Airfix Graf Spee was released in 1971, the Airfix HMS Ajax is from 1965. The Airfix Spee you've made is from a 1978 boxing. I built all the ships using Airfix 1/600 kits from the Battle in 1978 to illustrate a school assignment, Exeter was hardest using an Airfix Suffolk and Ajax and a lot of Plasticard (she, Achillies and Spee no longer exist). I loved the Spee, niggles aside (I have the 1971 Warship Profile No.4 Graf Spee as a reference), a very nice model to build. I was then given the Matchbox 1/700 Spee and Exeter, lovely kits, saw a few bits on my 1/600 Exeter I got not quite right but, Oh well 🤔 Got another Airfix Spee in the stash . . . . Mmmmm Thanks for sharing you build 😎

Not sure why you'd use 1970's RAN A-4G markings on an A-4B unless you're Whiffing it. If that's your intention well done and nice finish. Being an Ex-RAN Skyhawk maintainer seeing a "B" dressed as one of "ours" is jarring. The two A-4 types are very different, (made worse by how poor the Airfix A-4B is) overall length, nose shape, intakes, engines, exhaust/sugar scoop fairings and general details. An RAN A-4G is actually a J-52 powered A-4F model Skyhawk. Quickboost make a cranked A-4E/F/G etc refueling probe. Airfix Dog Fight Double A50134 is Sea Harrier vs. A-4P Skyhawk. FAAMAN

Now I know what you've been up to, very well done Ratch!!!