Have you ever built the Belvedere? Would you commit to what it needs to make the kit, or would you prefer to wait for MikroMir's offerings later this year? Let me know in the comments below...
I do love the first and second generation helicopters - they had real character. I've no interest in a kit of a modern Chinook or an Apache but give me a Piasecki flying banana, a Sikorsky HO3 or an Alouette II or III any day. Problem is only the small niche companies or first run guys will do these models. I still have nightmares about trying to build the AMP 1/48 Sikorsky HO3 - so much so I sold my AMP 1/48 Bristol Sycamore from the stash and i've avoided buying their most recent Sikorsky H-19.
Thanks for the honest review Alex. I’m staying away from this one and putting my hopes on MikroMir. This kind of lazy work from a kit manufacturer should not go unpunished.
I remember building this as a lad, it was so bad it ended up as a target for my brothers air pistol. So sad it has not been sorted out after all these years and a tad cheeky of Airfix to release it again in such a sorry state.
Yes. It’s a Vintage Classic so by definition is an old and crude kit that is appalling by modern standards even after upgrading the decals. Do it for nostalgia, use your imagination and bin those expectations of detail and accuracy
Models were aimed at kids for a target group. Most kits in the 60's were straight forward & easy. Parts were molded to break off cleanly. There were no part snips but your Dad's wire cutters. 1 type of glue & Testors Paint. Enamels. I went where my imagination sent me. I built a Wolfpack U-boat by Aurora. My Grandfather kept it in his bedroom. He had interest in them & appreciated having the static model to look at & reflect from. They were sinking shipping just outside Portland, Maine. Out in the Gulf of Maine. He dabbled in Black Market beef during the war against rationing. Some of his customers were the law so he was pretty much safe from arrest.
"The 60''s" is a ten-year span. Both 1960 and 1969 are "the 60's", and scale-model manufacturing (and Airfix) had made huge strides in between. I also deny that kits from even the early sixties were all straightforward and easy. Airfix's 1958 104-part kit of the Superfreighter was not straight and easy, or aimed at a kid market. Neither was Airfix's 1961 122-part Halifax bomber kit, or the ultra-complex Ju 88 from 1964, which was hailed in its time as a masterpiece (witness readers' letters from contemporary Airfix Magazine issues), despite the cockpit transparencies which, just as in the Bristol 192, are a howler (but you have to concede that the Ju 88's cockpit canopy is quite difficult to model). Airfix's progression was steady and impressive: while the Lancaster and Haifax had no bomb bays, the excellent Stirling (1966) had, along with the intricate undercarriage. Also in 1966 you have the tremendous B-29 and a year later the very good (and definitely NON-childlike) He 177. As for the Bristol 192, Airfix fell prey to the rush to be first there with up-to-the minute hardware, even at the price of producing a prototype which might (and eventually did) differ starkly from production versions. Same happened to them with the equally poor Blackburn NA-39 Buccaneer. You have to put yourself in Airfix's (and the average adult English modeller) shoes from way back then: a combination of patriotism (Airfix was unabashedly British then, and so were British modellers) and difficult access to good plans or readily available information (those were first-rank weapons then) brought Airfix to some rushed issues, and this is also a part of history which gets lost to the modeller of today. Yes, the 192 is a turkey, and it was bad even in 1958, but the kit was and is dimensionally correct, and it appealed to the (adult) modeller who read about the prototype's exploits in the daily press. I'll end this long post (sorry!) by noting that the progression of helicopter kits by Airfix is breathtaking: The Vertol 107 (1965), Westland Scout (1966) and Sikorsky Sea King (1969, again a prototype) are excellent, and the Westlan Pumad (1973 and yet again a prototype) simply brilliant (and, yes, they got the cockpit VERY right this time!). Finally the price of this Bristol 192 kit is quite modest by today's standards: a new-tool 1/72 Bristol 192 would probably have to sell at GBP 50,00 to make a profit, and a 1/48 one would be off the charts. Keep'em coming, Airfix!
I agree with everything you said here, EXECPT that last part about a new-tool Bristol 192 price. A comparable Airfix kit might be a series 4 or 5 (the Chinook is much bigger and is a series 6) so from £24-29. I'll look forward to the MikroMir example and what it costs.
9:30 I once got into an argument with a much older modeller about this. He called modern day kits "Shake'n'Bake modelling that requires no effort". Such an odd mindset that inferior product is a more worthy challenge, but to each his own.
Yeah, it tends to be those "of a certain age" and mindset. I have no issue with them wanting to make horrible kits, but saying it is "the right way" is just insane.
@@burningphoneix 100% correct. I assemble all my models blindfolded for this reason; your precious 'eyeballs' and 'sight' make the hobby require no effort.
The detail seems basically what I would expect for a kit from its era. I believe some other model kits from this kit's era (& even a few somewhat later kits) probably had similar or worse detail & molding issues. If Airfix had updated & improved this model kit, likely some would be dissatisfied that the kit was no longer "original".
@@MannsModelMomentsGreat, comprehensive review of the vintage Airfix "Belvedere" helicopter model kit (I had intended to mention this in my previous comment)! Personally, I think it's great if a model company re-issues an older kit, updated with possibly much needed improvements in detail & assembly fitment, & overall quality, which can allow a kit to "be the kit it should have been" (but wasn't, originally). It's good to know (& not surprising) that other model builders prefer improved re-issued model kits, as well. But it seems that many of the re-issues of older kits (that were first issued in the late 1950's or 1960's, by companies such as Monogram & Revell) were probably not updated (except maybe with new decals), but were simply repackaged with new box graphics (Revell's "History Makers" kits, which were released about 10 years ago, were such re-issued kits, originally produced & soldin the 1950's & 1960's, I believe. Some of these were interesting & unique model kits). I suppose that those who might prefer "originality" over "improved" for a vintage model kit, may have never built a model, or simply care more about model kit collector value than building the models they collect.
This reminds me a lot of the Atlantis brand re-issues of old American kits. I built one (B-36, Revell c. 1954) early in my modeling days and am glad I did. All of that fiddly clean up, filling, scraping, and scribing really challenged me to be a better and more efficient modeler when dealing with well made, modern kits.
I am going to build the Belvedere again. But surely the outcome is in the hands of the modeller. There are many fault that I did not know when I was a lad but now I can correct them. I think the worst part is the canopy but even that is not beyond redemption. I automatically buy the "Vintage" issues simply to test my skills.
Fair enough, and if you know what you're getting into, then more power to you. I don't agree that in this kit the outcome is really in the hands of the modeller, unless you're planning to build a prototype, because to build a production aircraft you'd be better off scratch building.
But is this the purpose of modelling? To show you are talented? I don't believe so. Modelling should be for fun - it's a hobby. There's nothing wrong with challenging yourself, but I prefer to spend my precious time on more deserving products
I made this as a kid back in the mid Seventies. Even the 10 year old me thought it was bad then. I've enjoyed a few 'Vintage Classics' , Bond Bug, SRN1, but come on, Airfix, most of them are simply not worth the effort . Classic is a much misused word and no excuse for punting out bad kits. Oh well, nostalgia just isn't what it used to be. Great to see an honest review.
This reminds me of modelling as a kid, and may be the reason i gave up thinking it was my skills. The strange thing is having seen this review i almost want to buy this kit just for nostalgia.
Built this as youngster back in the day and did reasonable job for my skills at the time.I loved Airfix and still make them today.I actually like cleaning up the moulds and warping ( I have the time now).Tamiya kits by comparison I could do in an afternoon if I didn’t have to paint them.Despite what you say about this kit I might do it again for old times sake.
Greg's Models did a build of the pre vintage classic version of this kit, and he had a nightmare with it. He vac- formed a new cocpit canopy and made some adjustments, but said it almost put him off the hobby doing it
I'm sorry but I think you might have been a bit harsh on this review. Granted it is not up to today's standards. It isn't marketed as such. Given that it is probably the only example of this particular aircraft, and that the type is probably not a big enough seller to warrant new tooling (or even re-engineering of the existing mold), I think Airfix made the decision (correct in my opinion) to simply release it as a Vintage Classic for those who do want to build this aircraft and are not put off by the issues. To compare it in terms of modern tooling is not really fair to the company or the engineers who originally tooled the kit. I do understand the need to present an honest review for those who might not know of the history of the kit are would be temped by the box art. Perhaps the review should be presented in such a way that is more open to the reasons the kit has been re-released.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree. This isn't a kit worthy of £16 today. In 1950 a series 3 kit (which this was) cost 4'6d - which is equivalent to £10.50 today adjusted for inflation. So Airfix are applying a 50% price uplift for new decals. If they had re-engineered the transparencies, I could understand this - but not for a kit with this many faults as it is. For £16 there are many far superior kits available (including from Airfix), and I am positive the MikroMir kit will be superior to this one in every way, without even knowing the price of it. If you still want to buy the kit - that's fine, it's your money, your choice, all I've done is shown the very real problems with the kit and given some possible solutions and my opinion. I don't think there's more I could do than that, and I am certainly not condoning the kits release "as is", because I don't believe it's a good one.
Who at airfix in their right mind approved this for reissue without checking to see if it was suitable for reissue......or maybe they did check and just didn't care
Simon Kohler was responsible for the release of these kits, on his first day back at Hornby he went to the stores to find all the old tooling, only to be told most of them had been dumped in a skip and sold for scrap. Several tools had escaped thanks to one of the stores men, Kohler decided to re-release them as a classic range, the retailers (including myself) were conned into thinking these were new tools. If I remember right they had a minimum order of six units, al I know is they collected dust on the shelf for about two years, I eventually sold them off and £5 each, taking a loss on them. Kohler was also responsible for resurrecting old Hornby tooling that lacked detail the modern model railway modeler demands, he was also the man behind the introduction of the TT120 range, a range that still lacks track parts, and scenic terrain, you literally have to scratch build everything
Unless you have a particular soft spot for this helicopter or Airfix, I just cant see the point of bothering. There are masses of excellent quality kits on the market today.
To be honest most of the Airfix models i built in the 70s and early 80s weren't as good as the competition, many of the kits seemed to have worn out tooling and a lack of detail, Tamiya were far superior, as was Matchbox, and the 1/48 scale monogram kits were too. I tended to avoid Airfix.
I am glad I got one, an old boxing from the 60’s but it was part of a second’s sale for $5. I cannot imagine how the thing could possibly be worth the price that’s being asked (new decals or not). The basic kit is simply not worth it.
Anyone who wants to see what's really involved in getting this build right should check out Greg's models version of this. A truly incredible update and possibly the best version that's ever been created.
Shame the quality is off, but this bought back many nostalgic memories of making this as a kid decades ago. I even had the bloodhound missile to go with it. Hopefully it will be re-engineered at some point, but I doubt Airfix is rolling in cash so might take a while.
I remember this kit well. I got it as a treat from a toy shop in Blackpool in, I would guess, 1974. I wasn't a brilliant modelmaker, but I'd done a good job with the Airfix Sopwith Pup a few months earlier and felt I was getting better. Well, it just took one really bad kit to wreck that growing confidence. The damn fuselage just wouldn't go together. I had to re-glue it a couple of times (from a tube, naturally) and resorted to elastic bands to hold the halves in place. After a lot of effort, I ended up with a dreadful mess and the join still gaped in places. I finished it, but without enthusiasm and -- holding myself responsible for the debacle, because adults would never release a shoddy kit, would they? -- that was pretty much the death of my model building until fairly recently. So, yeah, this Belvedere kit stole my joy fifty years ago. You can imagine my delight at seeing it rereleased. And, apparently no effort has been made to improve it. Just brilliant. I buy a lot of Airfix stuff and am supportive of the company, but I honestly have no idea what they're thinking of when they lob a palpable turkey like the Belvedere out into the marketplace.
I am a professional model maker who builds multiple kits for diorama builds (mostly car kits), and, of all kits i purchase, the Airfix kits are the least detailed. The moulded parts are not designed for mould very well as the parts are vague in their precision. Even with fettling and sanding, it still makes hard work. There are many finer detailed kits available on the market.
The great news for me is that my stash contains an earlier boxing in silver plastic with decals NOT by cartograf.My understanding is that the Bond Bug and Auster HAD to have new transparencies as the original moulds were lost/damaged...
I made this kit myself about 30 years ago as a nostalgia trip, it was unbelievably bad, at the time when I wondered how Airfix ever gone away with it? But, having built a few their early kits that I made as a child in the early 1960's some of their others are no better. Thank goodness things have improved. P.S. The best early Airfix kit I ever built is the 1/12 Bentley.
I've not built or purchased this product, but I can recall a friend doing so in 1974, and even then, as a somewhat 'green' modeller, I wasn't overly impressed with what I saw. This is certainly a product of its time. Having said that, I understand why Airfix have included it as part of their 'Vintage Classics' line. This model is, as far as I'm concerned, purely for nostalgia and nothing more, or for those masochists who are prepared to indulge in an obscene amount of hard work in order to attain acceptable results. I'm sure Mikro-Mir's soon to be released offering will be most worthy, but the Belvedere is, even though having a relatively short service period in the Royal Air Force, a wholly British design and therefore deserves to be properly represented with a new tool in '72 and '48 from Airfix. If they can produce a beauty with their recent Sea King, imagine what they could do with a Belvedere....or Wessex, or Gazelle, or Whirlwind, or Scout, or Sycamore.......or..... I digress.😄 Excellent and comprehensive overview as always.👍
It is rather sad that we must rely on other manufacturers to recreate classic subjects of British Aviation history - the Dora Wings Fairey Delta 2 springs to mind
@MannsModelMoments It is indeed. As you correctly state, the FD-2 is a perfect example. A design from the halcyon days of British aviation needs to be represented by a British model company and Airfix would be the perfect candidate. (No disrespect to DW in anyway. Top marks to them for producing this a/c in model form.) I neglected to agree with you in my previous comments regarding the lovely decal sheet for the Belvedere....... Complete waste of resources!😒
I built this kit in the early 1970s and it was old then (it was released in 1959). I would say the standard of the kit is no worse than most other kits of the 1950s, and it is better than many. One point I will make, is that you can still buy an original vintage one for about £10. However, you would still have to buy decals as the originals will probably disintegrate when they touch water.
I'm trying to remember which Airfix Vintage Classics kits I've built. I know I've done the Jaguar 420 and the Bond Bug. I don't know if the Maserati Indy was sold as a vintage classic, but it was a re-pop of a vintage kit. The Bug was a really nice building experience, there was minimal flash or issues to correct. The Jag needed more work as there were sink marks to fill and excess plastic to remove, but it came up very nicely. The Maserati was somewhere between the two, mainly suffering because the windscreen was a poor fit. However, this review reminds me of the line from Jurassic Park; “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.” Just because you can re-release an old kit, it doesn't mean it's a good idea to push it to market.
In my opinion. The Vintage Classic range is nostalgia bait and I'm all for it. Yes. The tooling is worn out. Yes, the parts don't fit quite right. Yes the detail is lacking, but that's the whole point. They're a challenge to build and to get looking good. Modern tools have fantastic detail and the parts fit together easily (Tamiya, I'm looking at you), but they boring to build. I've build a majority of the Vintage Classic range and enjoyed every one. Yes, I've added the Belvedere to the stash and look forward to the challenge of doing it justice.
I agree and disagree. Yes, it is nostalgia bait, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. But the "challenge to build" argument I think is pure garbage. I don't think I've ever been "bored" making a modern kit. Lack of fit is not a "challenge" or something to aspire to - if it ism then make a vacform kit or scratch-build, or buy an old eastern european tooled kit from ebay for £3. But a major company profit-raking from a re-issue of bad kits? As another commenter pointed out, you can pick up old releases of this kit for £10 - so why not do that? Re-issuing old kits that you CAN'T get hold of (like the Bond Bug) is a different matter, but this old pile of trash? Nah.
In my youth it seemed every Airfix kit I build fitted perfectly. After building some vintage classics I have to admit that the images from my youth are deceiving. But I have them in my mind being perfect. Or at least being great fun. Which is perfect for me. I have some old 1960' s releases and they fit well. I don' t like the light grey modern plastic, the old "metallic" plastic seemed sturdier and looked better. In the fuselage of the DH Heron is a hole and they forgot the clear parts in my box. Shame on you, Airfix! Still love you...
A kit - any kit, any maker - is but a starting point to assist you in making as good a job as you are capable of. It may in truth be a naff kit, but even so, if it inspires you to have a go, it is worth its weight in gold. I am 82 and have been modelmaking actively since I was about ten, starting with solid balsa kits for a Spitfire and a Hurricane. And, boy, were they basic! But, you build, you advance and you improve, and you move into disciplines, like flying aircraft, rubber, i.c. Engines, gliders, whatever or, like me, into model railways from ready to run through kits to scratchbuilding. And it frequently starts with a naff kit! So hang in there!
I wonder if maybe you're not actually supposed to assemble the "vintage classics." Maybe they're marketed at oldies as a piece of "nostalgia" (this explains my collection of all of the old Airfix 1/32 scale toy soldiers) 😊
@@MannsModelMoments An absolutely biased and a ridiculous comment yet again. From a guy who asks for clicks and support for ……… Money. How do you survive as a modeller, other than the airfix foot in the door, with such blinkers and disregard of what others may want?
What is your problem? Carry on this way and I'll just report you, because you're not adding anything to any sensible discussion here, you're just using any opportunity to have a personal attack on me. If you don't like my videos, watch something else or make your own (I notice you don't) - it'll be better for your blood pressure. Airfix (Hornby) are the WORST company to do business with of any of the companies I work with, but again you wouldn't know, because you don't have any sort of informed opinion here, just hate. As such, there's no "foot in the door" provided by them. As for the "such blinkers and disregard of what others may want?" - hahahaha - never has "The pot calling the kettle black" been so apt!
@@MannsModelMoments I have sat on your reply comments for over 24 hours . Feel free to report as everything I have said is factual, yet you tar me with ‘Pot Kettle’! You decry Airfix yet happy to sell your soul to them for you own gain. Feel free mate, you are another of the shake and bakes that only posts negative of the product!
Had been planning on picking up a couple of airfix kits for bolt action. I've heard a lot of negative feedback regarding Airfix these days, looks like their practices haven't improved! Sure probably look for aircraft scaled to 28mm
Nice to see a build review - like that format. 👍 Have to admit that doesn't look too bad after some of the Revell kits I have done recently! Luckily I am not that fussed about helicopters so it wouldn't be on my wish list. Airfix could have retooled the clear parts, and a few of the other bits like the rocker switch and wheels on a new clear frame and charged more for it. With that you wouldn't mind working on the fuselage and scratch building some bits.
@@glencwilson I think retooled transparencies would have probably done it, tbh - you kind of don't mind making the effort when you know the manufacturer has put some effort in too...
I think your review gives fair warning to anyone attempting to build this kit. I am disappointed that Airfix didn't re-engineer the front canopy and give modellers a fighting chance but that's their decision I guess. I'd have liked to have built this because the machines were built locally and I'm told only 26 were ever built. As to Mikro Mir....well, yes I will wait to see what they offer but it has to be right as I suspect it won't be cheap.
Wow Alex. It looks a challege. I didn't know so much about it when I ordered it, but I will still give it a go. The bad fit you describe was unexpected. A pity Airfix didn't make one first. In my researches, since ordering, I discovered the "protoype" issue, what a shame, a bit like the Fairey Rotodyne (that'll need a lot of work too). However I thought it worth doing some work to "update" it to a production model, not expecting anyone else to be issueing this subject, and me being a helicopter nut. I plan a visit to Weston when I can programme it in to get some more detailed info. Incidentally you missed the direction of rotation of the rotors (which should be contra rotating and geared together to avoid "blade crash" over the body). Well I seem to have quite a task ahead!!!! Lets see what Micromir have to offer. Incidentally, do you know of any book on the aircraft. PS, the box art maybe represents the troop deployment demo shown in the promotional film made at the time (that was a prototype). PPS even the prototypes were upgraded to production standard.
These re-releases are an exercise in nostalgia, a reminder of how it felt to be a kid again struggling with dubious fit and other "challenges". What they are not is a gap in the market for unusual prototypes to satisfy skilled modellers. One of the things that is unsatisfactory, is vintage classic box artwork appears to be a reproduction from old boxes, not the original artwork, and is often cropped.
@@borderlands6606 they absolutely are an exercise in nostalgia, but with a bit of additional care Airfix could have made this more appealing to a wider audience (as with the Bond Bug and Auster), rather than relying on an aging (and shrinking) nostalgia bait market
Weren't these made cheaply to be in pocket money range at the time though? I recall being able to buy one plus glue as a kid and still have some pocket money. The end result was mostly glue back then 😂
What a disgraceful release this is. From the erroneous instructions to the shockingly moulded parts. You have £32 of unsellable stock! You did more than i was expecting you to build. Thank you Alex
Hmm I built this.kit in the early 1960s as a kid. Believe me this was a great kit for its day especially when you compare to Revell and Lindberg offerings of the late 50s that wern't even to a proper scale. In the day they were constriction toys rather than scale models of today. But skilled modellers as opposedto kit builders did some fine work on them. If you arn't interested in historic kits don't build them and best to compare them to kits of a similar era rather than new kits.
Built one of these as a commission job, eons ago. Tough cookie, but not half as bad as the Bristol Blenheim Mk.IV and the Wellington Mk.III. It being one of the prototypes mirrors the old story about the venerable Frog DH-110 being the prototype for the Sea Vixen and not a production machine. Or so i've been told. I've seen far, far worse from post-1991 Eastern Europe and Airfix's 1980s/90s galore on my workbench. Not a good kit, by any standard - even by its time - but not absolutely atrocious. No vitriol this time. Have a fantastic weekend, mate. Cheers.
I was feeling very underwhelmed when I took a look inside the box of mine this week. It looks like a lot of work, and whilst some people enjoy that challenge, I'm not sure I will. Also, as you mentioned, the only option to build a prototype version is frustrating
The Belvedere was one of my first kits in the 70´s. In my memory he still looks great. From today’s perspective, he is certainly not the best but anyone who has ever tried a vacuum kit will still appreciate it today...😉
I remember this kit and I made ( or my brother) iirc. I made 100's in the early 80's we made loads of kits that always needed bending or fixing. I do remember my brother using a g clamp ( from his woodworking school project ). On a F105 starfighter that had a banana shape fuselage...... lol. I could go on, but all kits have problems imho most of the time 🤦♂️
This kit is older than IO am. All kits released at this time were a challenge. Compared to modern kits, they require a bit of care and attention to get then to look like the real thing. However, that was not the aim of me and my peers. Whack it together and then use it for air rifle practice. Their is a real one at RAF Hendon.
@@85inexact Respectfully. You are missing the point. People buying this kit are buying nostalgia. This is true of all the classic kits Airfix re releases. It's a window into the past. Either to relive the building of a favourite kit, or to acquire one that one luted over in the past, without having to pay a collectors premium.
@@GasMan66-p5c Oh I'm well aware it's nostalgia in a box, I'm pretty sure that's what keeps the entire company afloat at this point. You have to understand to sell that quality product at the price point is a total farce, right?
@@85inexact Considering that I used to buy a series 3 kit for 37 English New pence, I can't disagree with that point. However, Airfix has upped its game with many of its new kits, te quality of which is incomparable to the kits manufactured from the 20th century, but I resent that everything has been outsourced to India. One always has the choice on whether to spend the money or otherwise. for the time this was quite a nice kit.
No it’s got to be that massive kit of the cross channel hovercraft, when you opened the box and the side skirts were in twenty pieces all hard plastic that didn’t fit together and look anything like !
Buyers remorse- i had this kit on order for a few months and got mine last week. I suspect it will remain in my stash forever. After my disappointment with previous vintage classics such as the westland whirlwind and the H.S 125, i think i will be avoiding future vintage classics!
Unfortunately human memory is unreliable, and as kids we often built things with no expectations or awareness, and it was fun because there wasn't much else competing for our time. That is neither true for us as adults nor of children today, which is why I think many people are disappointed when they revisit these kits
15:11 Actually, the box artwork closely mirrors some of the demonstration flights in this video here. czcams.com/video/zJFNhcS2o70/video.html Theres a couple of instances of the early models being used to drop off squaddies much like the box artwork. I imagine Airfix in the fifties made the kit based on what was known/available at the time and never updated it.
We have been pampered too much by overly engineered modern kits that we are quick to disparage those that were released three generations ago. That being said, modern kits can be so complex that it becomes just as niche and even more difficult to build than those nostalgic kits released by Airfix in the sense that up to what point do you want to smash a kit after attaching the 50th tiny PE part in a multimedia kit that requires two types of glue but you can't smash it because it costs 70 to 100 dollars? Those Airfix kits were built not with detailed accuracy in mind but because it was aimed at the children of yesteryear who after building it will blow it up come new year's day and not think twice about buying another one and blowing it up again. Try blowing up a Meng or Takom kit nowadays. Some decades ago, I got fed up with Italeri's Panther A with zimmerit that I threw it on the floor and even stomped on it, but then I did remember it cost 20 dollars then which was already pricey at that time especially since I live in a third world country, so I rebuilt the damaged kit. A few years ago I bought the Amusing Hobby German multiturret tank the Neubaufahrzeug, and after looking at all the tiny parts in it which included tiny track pins I decided to give it away as a Christmas gift because I wouldn't be able to build it and if I gave up on it it would be a shelf queen until the day I die. So as I said, these old Airfix kits are built with the kids of yesteryear in mind and the tools that they had then which were so basic and nothing fancy like extra thin cement but thick tube cement that would easily bond those two halves together and fill up any gap. Thick clear parts for a kid won't be a problem because glue smeared clear parts are a rite of passage so what's a little air bubble? Could Airfix have reengineered the clear plastic like it did several others? Sure, but why complain about a clear part when everything else is rudimentary since it's an old old kit? Is it then the worst Airfix kit? Many other Airfix kits will qualify as well but we purchase it and build it not because we want to apply today's technology towards old kits but because we want to remember our youth, we want to remember mom, dad, grandpa, grandma and imagine that they still are there in the kitchen, or in the living room during sunny days of summer when they have all since passed on. It is Airfix reminding us that our hobby is in mortal peril because we are dying out and we are going through great lengths to pass it on to a younger generation who are glued to devices and computer games.
I think this is a common view amongst a certain set of older modellers, but not one I agree with I'm afraid. I would answer at length, but I've had enough of these comments that I think it's probably worth me doing a video on the subject....
Mann I must say for a kit from the 50's it is not that bad. Yes it has flaws but with good modeling skills it can be overcomed. Back in my day and when I started modeling,these kits were at times all we had. Nisalgia builds yes,bad to today standards,I will give you that one. Just remember this injection molding was just catching on and these kits where made cheap for kids with a little bit of pocket money where we could spend our allowance for a kit,glue and paint. To let you know for a couple of bucks a kid had a model to build. Back in my day star trek came out and my dad bought me that enterprise kit at 20 dollars and it came with the lighting kit. That there should tell you something about modeling. A lot of those kits came in bags and if you got something like a airfix,revell and rewall ...ect you were rolling in high cotton.....😊
I appreciate that, but it's not the middle of the 20th century any more. Standards if living are higher, technology is ubiquitous and model kits fit together. If this was £10 (the inflation-adjusted price from it's release), it would still be a poor offering, but it's £16...for a frustrating experience. With all the alternatives to spend your time, how is this capturing anyone's interest?
@@MannsModelMoments how is it capture anybody interest,easy one to answer. Do you have kids or grandchildren and if so,these are great starter kits. You can teach them a lot from a simple kit like this one.....
@@richardjordan5036 Absolutely not - this is a TERRIBLE kit to give to any child, it would be the WORST possible thing to do. Give them the new P-51D, Bf109F, or any of the other Starter Sets from Airfix and you may garner their interest, but this? Not a chance.
Yeah, this was a dog kit back in the day, so I'm not surprised not a lot has changed. But you get out what you put in, sometime you gotta work for your results.
Unfortunately human memory is unreliable, and as kids we often built things with no expectations or awareness, and it was fun because there wasn't much else competing for our time. That is neither true for us as adults nor of children today, which is why I think many people are disappointed when they revisit these kits
I'd have settled for a new set of transparencies, but apparently we need to look to Ukrainian manufacturers to release great kits of classic British aviation history....
No, I did not enjoy this review. Without the Airfix kits you mock, there would be no modern super kits to drool over. I am happy to see Airfix re-issue kits from the 1950s and 1960s, so I have a chance to again build the kits I enjoyed in the past, and to try those I missed out on. Good on Airfix for re-issuing the Belvedere.
What a lot of rot. US manufacturers came before Airfix, Revell was not far behind and the Japanese manufacturers also started in the 1960s and have kept going strong when Airfix bankrupted itself. Mismanagement has landed it in administration several times, unlike many of the Japanese kit makers that have remained steady since their inception - so we would absolutely have "modern super kits to drool over" without Airfix.- in fact many of them come from those super-stable Japanese makers who have been ahead of the game since they started.
Admittedly I've not built the Belvedere, I've been tempted rhough. Yes, the kit is far from perfect, the canopy is, well, should be outlawed (as said). But are we just used to kits where we empty the box on the bench and it falls together- no sanding, no reviting, no filling, just a shake and ta da. Have we been spoilt with the likes of Eduard, ZM etc? This is a vintage classic, some reverse engineering would have been nice but it's an old mould. Personally I look at the filling, sanding, flash removal and even rebuilding kit parts from scratch as part of modelling, yes it's nice when kits fit well and so on but faults and issues add to the enjoyment, the overall accomplishment of a good looking completed build. Apologies for the waffle.
What does this mean, "reality check required"? The kit is undeniably and irrefutably outdated and trash. Take the nostalgia goggles off, that's the reality...
I have 3 of them in my stash,and am looking forward to building them,though,they will be painted pink purple and orange,the colours my granddaughters chose, although this isn't the first time airfix got it wrong,the fairy battle airfix produced was the prototype of that aircraft
Airfix have some bloody nerve with these Crap Old Kits. OK, if its something nobody else has moulded then fine, reissue them. But for the love of god, keep the price down around £9.99.
Have a look on Airfix latest RNLI Shannon Class. Model designed now and can compete with 'quality' of this kit. They even ask £9.99 for decla sheet with all boat numbers because kit has got only ONE number! Shameful attack on modellers' pockets.
@@MannsModelMoments their excuse was the fact it is 'starter kit'. If only paints and glue added to this kit would be useful in any way :) (brushes are ok IMHO). Curious if that re-issued Severn Class boat has got all the numbers on the decal sheet and its price is almost the same like Shannon Class, but complexity and attention to details is uncomparable.
Surely the clue is in the title Vintage Classic. The kit is a product of it’s time. Very few kits of the 1950’s and 1960’s were any better. If you want an Airfix kit to complain about how about the Bell P-39 Airacobra. . Airfix have updated the box art and the decals but the monstrosity in the box dates from 1964. Even Airfix don’t have the brass neck to call it a Vintage Classic.
Well, I personally consider it pointless to judge and criticize vintage kits from the modern perspective for their lack of accuracy and even sick fit. Each kit should be judged according to the standards of the era it belongs to, and by comparison with their contemporaries, and we all know how "technology" back in the 1950s was... In my case, and as far as I can remember now, the worst kits that I built to date were also Airfix kits (1/72 SB2C Helldiver and 1/48 Hawker Hurricane), and both had serious fit issues which I attributed to the manufacturing of the products even by comparison with contemporaries which were better manufactured (Hasegawa, Tamiya, and maybe also Italeri and Revell); but never judging them from current standards. Of those two kits that I have just mentioned, the first one was one of the very few that ended up in the dustbin before the work was completed. Its main problem was the non-existent fit between the wing set and the fuselage. The wing set was bent downward, making it that there was always a large gap or seam at one end or the other between wings and fuselage. Probably it would have been enough to dip the wing set in boiling water and, when the plastic was soft enough, bend it carefully until it reached the rightful position, but back then I did not think of that. Same could have possibly be done here with the fuselage halves. As long as pieces fit together well enough, and the model is recognizable enough so as to make it unnecessary to explain what kit is that, I am okay with vintage kits, with all their drawbacks. Besides, in a way they make me remember merry old times from my childhood, when everything mas more artisan (which gives way more credit and value to the work of people at the company than it should do today- everything done with computers) and in a way more "humane" and even real. Injection points on windows and such? I don't care- that lets me build a vintage model quite natural as it came, as it was manufactured. I am not that delicate and sensible to certain details. No need for a drama on how inaccurate do moulds look or how imperfect their fit is. I just (try to) enjoy vintage kits as they are. Let's make the most of it, because one day these old moulds will be gone forever and we may miss building one of those.
I absolutely disagree. These kits are being sold at 2024 prices, so they should be judged on their own merits , not with some sort of retro-fitted rose-coloured glasses. If you want to builf this kit for nostalgia (the ONLY reason I can see to build it), then that's fine - enjoy. However, I'm always going to critique something that demands the same money and MORE time and effort than other kits available today, It's the same reason I choose to drive a modern car, and not a Ford Anglia. Some might look back with teary eyes at these old motors and kits, but in every measurable way, they are inferior to modern productions - that's just progress. People seem to think the past was better than today, but in most metrics it simply wasn't - people were poorer, lived shorter, harder lives with fewer opportunities. We may have lost some things along the way, but let's not kid ourselves that "things were better back then", because they weren't - and this kit is a reminder of that.
@@MannsModelMoments I did not say that "the past was better", but rather that I am aware of the limitations of the technology back then, and (again) the merit of producing these items using traditional tools. That a computer does the work well is no oddity. Trying to do the same with traditional tools has way more merit. You said it yourself in the first sentence: the merit of been artisan work (while today it's a computer that does the whole work- where's the merit there?). It´s not nostalgia nor anything of the like, but simply appreciating the hard work behind the production of an item. Quality has improved undeniably, yes, but it´s not just that (the end) but also how was it made be, the process behind it. A good example, from my own personal experience, is the difference between Airfix's 1/72nd classic Tiger Moth and the newest release with upgraded moulds. No way can they be compared, because they belong to different eras done with different tools. As for the price, well, opinions are divided about it. Vintage kit lovers do not seem to bother so much about it and they buy them under the awareness that as time goes by it'll be harder to find any; a view probably shared by manufacturers and sellers. Detractors, on the other hand, hold that prices might be absurdly high. I am in a kind of in-between position. It depends on the kind it particular; I cannot make any generalization. In any case, and still continuing with prices, I am not sure now, but I would say that in the past the prices for kits were not way lower than they are today, at least judging from my personal experience. Hand-crafted products are normally (or at least at times) not so cheap. As you yourself said, in the past there was more poverty than today and had fewer opportunities, which inevitably implies that the prices for kits were unaffordable for most people then. As a conclusion, I personally consider vintage kits "better" than modern ones in terms of merit behind the manufacturing process, not quality. And I don´t see the point of talking about driving old or new cars. In the past, cars were done to last (that is why today we have classic cars aged 30 or over), while we are all aware of the fact that the world today spins so fast that living expectancy of everything shortens, particularly when there are computers involved. Today, a car becomes old at the age of 10 (if not sooner), while up to the 80s at least that age was the age of "maturity". Who has got at home a computer aged 10 years or over? Not so many I guess. The same with cars. Besides, for manufacturers today it's more beneficiary to sell by the thousand non-stop and forget about it than having a lower rate of sales and repairable and lasting products. What benefits do manufacturers get from products of theirs who are repairable and under repair? Not so much, I'd say. Therefore, modern production of cars is not absolutely better than the older one "in every respect". Just make a proportion between durability and price, and see in the end which turns out to be a fraud. Most people today own a classic car just to "boast" on having a car different to any modern one, but they are still means of transport that can do more than just taking you from A to A. We are still using our original 1978 Citroën GS for routes around the city when our most modern car is unavailable, so we can still go from A to B with it. Safety is another story, yes.
@@Alantheleopard I think your premise is flawed. You say "a computer does all the work" today, but that's just a massive misunderstanding of the technology and dies a disservice to modern "artisans". Just because you are sculpting using a virtual medium does not mean you are less skilled than one working in a physical one, you just use different tools. CNC machining can produce better, more accurate renditions if those sculpts, but a person is still researching and designing them in exactly the same way, and so much MORE goes into making a modern kit than one in the 20th century.
@@MannsModelMoments Modern "artisans" are essentially computer operators. A computer does for you that for instance two panel lines run in parallel, or that riveting is distributed homogeneously, or simply that pieces are well-designed and manufactured so that they fit together perfect. An artisan from the 20th century has to do all this directly, by himself, without any intermediary tool apart from probably ruler and something else. I am not saying that current computer operators designing pieces are "less skilled" than their ancestros with their manual work, because they are two different kinds of "manual work" (just to try and find a generalizing term for both). To design 3D pieces with a computer program you need knowledge on computer programming that not everybody has, the same way that not everybody has the same skills to actually work their own products directly by hand. But I wouldn't be surprised if these two kinds of workers exchanged roles, they would both feel like "lost", not sure what to do, and how. For you to see that I am not that flawed, a few days ago I watched a video on how does Academy produce their kits today (probably you have seen it too). To make it short, in it you can clearly see that everything starts with computer-designing of the pieces and the sprues or skeletons containing such pieces. Then these are transferred to an industrial 3D-printing machine. The physical contact of the artisans with the products that they "manufacture" is then minimum, and even null during the manufacturing process as such. At most (and being a bit ironic) it´s the employees at the factory checking whether pieces have been well-produced, and then classifying the skeleton pieces to distribute them into bags and then into boxes the only actual physical contact that they have with the pieces. I guess that it's the same (or pretty similar at least) with any other brand today. That makes things surely easier and faster, without a question, but then again, it lacks the merit of actual and real artisan work. If there is no real physical contact between worker and its product during the manufacturing process, then I have my doubts that we can talk about "modern artisans", if it's not in an ironical or at least general way. What we should talk about today is rather industrialization. Inevitable because of progress and with its undeniable pros (like better quality and a larger and quicker mass production). But no real artisan work as such.
@@Alantheleopard That's just called progress. I am sure many decryed some of the loss of "artisan" jobs at the start of the industrial revolution, but so what? If you are looking for "artisinal" products, they still exist in all types of industry - rugs, jewelery - even cars - and that includes model kits too. There are still small companies making limited-run kits without computers, usually of unusual subjects. That isn't the same as a large company re-issuing an unchanged tool from 65 years ago (which has already paid for itself, so with a higher than original profit margin) and charging 2024 prices for it. I have absolutely no problem judging a company and kit that does that by their own modern standards.
My experience has been different. I built the Vintage Classic Whirlwind helicopter and, despite the awful glazing, managed to produce a decent replica.
@@guypenrose5477my westland whirlwind vintage classic did not go well - ive packed it away and try and finish it in December. Mind you, their P80 jet was a nice little dote of a thing. I went and both another P80 for the stash. But that was the exception to the rule
I totally agree. People get too soft and complainy when a kit doesnt measure up to modern computer generated kits that just fall together when you poor the parts out of the box. Old Airfix kits are what you test your abilities on. Work with what you got and make it better, its the Airfix way. Real bareback modelling.
What a lot of rubbish. Why would I waste my time trying to fix a kit that wasn't designed or manufactured properly? Do you buy a car with missing pieces or bits that don't work and accept it because "that's how cars used to be"? No. It's called progress. There is ONE reason to buy this kit, and it's nostalgia. To pretend anything else is deluding yourself.
@@HOTICE976 Hilarious. "Real modellers only work with crap". I've seen some crazy gatekeeper angles, but scale modelling gatekeepers are a special breed...
As box indicates: Vintage Classics. Model is from 1959 so it's a product of its era and should not be compared to later times models. Times were quite different back then.
And at no point did I compare it to a current tooling anywhere in the review - however Airfix are not asking an inflation-adjusted 1959 price for this, they're asking for a 60% increase on that, and I'm judging it on that 2024 monetary value. I stated that nostalgia is the main reason for building this kit, and I stand by that,.
Have you ever built the Belvedere? Would you commit to what it needs to make the kit, or would you prefer to wait for MikroMir's offerings later this year? Let me know in the comments below...
A Belvedere in 1/48 from MicroMir? Im very tempted indeed.
I do love the first and second generation helicopters - they had real character. I've no interest in a kit of a modern Chinook or an Apache but give me a Piasecki flying banana, a Sikorsky HO3 or an Alouette II or III any day. Problem is only the small niche companies or first run guys will do these models. I still have nightmares about trying to build the AMP 1/48 Sikorsky HO3 - so much so I sold my AMP 1/48 Bristol Sycamore from the stash and i've avoided buying their most recent Sikorsky H-19.
@@stephenwhelan2515 I'd definitely review it too!
Thanks for the honest review Alex. I’m staying away from this one and putting my hopes on MikroMir. This kind of lazy work from a kit manufacturer should not go unpunished.
Yes I have and would like another go. But I’ll finish it properly this time!
I remember building this as a lad, it was so bad it ended up as a target for my brothers air pistol. So sad it has not been sorted out after all these years and a tad cheeky of Airfix to release it again in such a sorry state.
😂
Greg’s Models built it recently , by the time he’d finished there wasn’t much of the original kit left , he did a fantastic job though
Yes, that was an amazing build but he's an amazing modeller.
@@fizzyridertoo he sure is
Totally agree with you there. He was having to mould new parts in order to come up with a decent model.
@@tomroland5467 he always goes above and beyond with every kit he builds
I saw that too: simply the best build of this kit I have ever seen.
Yes. It’s a Vintage Classic so by definition is an old and crude kit that is appalling by modern standards even after upgrading the decals. Do it for nostalgia, use your imagination and bin those expectations of detail and accuracy
So retrospective it literally takes me back to my childhood model making times..😂
Models were aimed at kids for a target group. Most kits in the 60's were straight forward & easy. Parts were molded to break off cleanly. There were no part snips but your Dad's wire cutters. 1 type of glue & Testors Paint. Enamels. I went where my imagination sent me. I built a Wolfpack U-boat by Aurora. My Grandfather kept it in his bedroom. He had interest in them & appreciated having the static model to look at & reflect from. They were sinking shipping just outside Portland, Maine. Out in the Gulf of Maine. He dabbled in Black Market beef during the war against rationing. Some of his customers were the law so he was pretty much safe from arrest.
"The 60''s" is a ten-year span. Both 1960 and 1969 are "the 60's", and scale-model manufacturing (and Airfix) had made huge strides in between. I also deny that kits from even the early sixties were all straightforward and easy. Airfix's 1958 104-part kit of the Superfreighter was not straight and easy, or aimed at a kid market. Neither was Airfix's 1961 122-part Halifax bomber kit, or the ultra-complex Ju 88 from 1964, which was hailed in its time as a masterpiece (witness readers' letters from contemporary Airfix Magazine issues), despite the cockpit transparencies which, just as in the Bristol 192, are a howler (but you have to concede that the Ju 88's cockpit canopy is quite difficult to model). Airfix's progression was steady and impressive: while the Lancaster and Haifax had no bomb bays, the excellent Stirling (1966) had, along with the intricate undercarriage. Also in 1966 you have the tremendous B-29 and a year later the very good (and definitely NON-childlike) He 177. As for the Bristol 192, Airfix fell prey to the rush to be first there with up-to-the minute hardware, even at the price of producing a prototype which might (and eventually did) differ starkly from production versions. Same happened to them with the equally poor Blackburn NA-39 Buccaneer. You have to put yourself in Airfix's (and the average adult English modeller) shoes from way back then: a combination of patriotism (Airfix was unabashedly British then, and so were British modellers) and difficult access to good plans or readily available information (those were first-rank weapons then) brought Airfix to some rushed issues, and this is also a part of history which gets lost to the modeller of today. Yes, the 192 is a turkey, and it was bad even in 1958, but the kit was and is dimensionally correct, and it appealed to the (adult) modeller who read about the prototype's exploits in the daily press. I'll end this long post (sorry!) by noting that the progression of helicopter kits by Airfix is breathtaking: The Vertol 107 (1965), Westland Scout (1966) and Sikorsky Sea King (1969, again a prototype) are excellent, and the Westlan Pumad (1973 and yet again a prototype) simply brilliant (and, yes, they got the cockpit VERY right this time!). Finally the price of this Bristol 192 kit is quite modest by today's standards: a new-tool 1/72 Bristol 192 would probably have to sell at GBP 50,00 to make a profit, and a 1/48 one would be off the charts. Keep'em coming, Airfix!
I agree with everything you said here, EXECPT that last part about a new-tool Bristol 192 price. A comparable Airfix kit might be a series 4 or 5 (the Chinook is much bigger and is a series 6) so from £24-29. I'll look forward to the MikroMir example and what it costs.
9:30 I once got into an argument with a much older modeller about this. He called modern day kits "Shake'n'Bake modelling that requires no effort". Such an odd mindset that inferior product is a more worthy challenge, but to each his own.
Yeah, it tends to be those "of a certain age" and mindset. I have no issue with them wanting to make horrible kits, but saying it is "the right way" is just insane.
He's right BTW.
@@burningphoneix 100% correct. I assemble all my models blindfolded for this reason; your precious 'eyeballs' and 'sight' make the hobby require no effort.
The detail seems basically what I would expect for a kit from its era. I believe some other model kits from this kit's era (& even a few somewhat later kits) probably had similar or worse detail & molding issues.
If Airfix had updated & improved this model kit, likely some would be dissatisfied that the kit was no longer "original".
It's a fair point, but Airfix did this with the Auster and Bond Bug and no-one complained.
@@MannsModelMomentsGreat, comprehensive review of the vintage Airfix "Belvedere" helicopter model kit (I had intended to mention this in my previous comment)!
Personally, I think it's great if a model company re-issues an older kit, updated with possibly much needed improvements in detail & assembly fitment, & overall quality, which can allow a kit to "be the kit it should have been" (but wasn't, originally).
It's good to know (& not surprising) that other model builders prefer improved re-issued model kits, as well. But it seems that many of the re-issues of older kits (that were first issued in the late 1950's or 1960's, by companies such as Monogram & Revell) were probably not updated (except maybe with new decals), but were simply repackaged with new box graphics (Revell's "History Makers" kits, which were released about 10 years ago, were such re-issued kits, originally produced & soldin the 1950's & 1960's, I believe. Some of these were interesting & unique model kits).
I suppose that those who might prefer "originality" over "improved" for a vintage model kit, may have never built a model, or simply care more about model kit collector value than building the models they collect.
It simply reflects the reality of Airfix’s quality issues at the time. That’s the price one pays for nostalgia.
True
This reminds me a lot of the Atlantis brand re-issues of old American kits. I built one (B-36, Revell c. 1954) early in my modeling days and am glad I did. All of that fiddly clean up, filling, scraping, and scribing really challenged me to be a better and more efficient modeler when dealing with well made, modern kits.
I am going to build the Belvedere again. But surely the outcome is in the hands of the modeller. There are many fault that I did not know when I was a lad but now I can correct them. I think the worst part is the canopy but even that is not beyond redemption. I automatically buy the "Vintage" issues simply to test my skills.
Fair enough, and if you know what you're getting into, then more power to you. I don't agree that in this kit the outcome is really in the hands of the modeller, unless you're planning to build a prototype, because to build a production aircraft you'd be better off scratch building.
Surely - if you can make an old Airfix kit look " serviceable " its proof enough you're a talented modeler.
But is this the purpose of modelling? To show you are talented? I don't believe so. Modelling should be for fun - it's a hobby. There's nothing wrong with challenging yourself, but I prefer to spend my precious time on more deserving products
I made this as a kid back in the mid Seventies. Even the 10 year old me thought it was bad then. I've enjoyed a few 'Vintage Classics' , Bond Bug, SRN1, but come on, Airfix, most of them are simply not worth the effort . Classic is a much misused word and no excuse for punting out bad kits. Oh well, nostalgia just isn't what it used to be. Great to see an honest review.
Thanks - it won't help my sales but I value my integrity more than a few pounds of profit!
This reminds me of modelling as a kid, and may be the reason i gave up thinking it was my skills. The strange thing is having seen this review i almost want to buy this kit just for nostalgia.
It's not a bad reason to buy it!
Built this as youngster back in the day and did reasonable job for my skills at the time.I loved Airfix and still make them today.I actually like cleaning up the moulds and warping ( I have the time now).Tamiya kits by comparison I could do in an afternoon if I didn’t have to paint them.Despite what you say about this kit I might do it again for old times sake.
And that's the only real reason to do it - nostalgia - which is, of course, a perfectly valid reason.
Greg's Models did a build of the pre vintage classic version of this kit, and he had a nightmare with it. He vac- formed a new cocpit canopy and made some adjustments, but said it almost put him off the hobby doing it
Indeed he did!
I'm sorry but I think you might have been a bit harsh on this review. Granted it is not up to today's standards. It isn't marketed as such. Given that it is probably the only example of this particular aircraft, and that the type is probably not a big enough seller to warrant new tooling (or even re-engineering of the existing mold), I think Airfix made the decision (correct in my opinion) to simply release it as a Vintage Classic for those who do want to build this aircraft and are not put off by the issues. To compare it in terms of modern tooling is not really fair to the company or the engineers who originally tooled the kit.
I do understand the need to present an honest review for those who might not know of the history of the kit are would be temped by the box art. Perhaps the review should be presented in such a way that is more open to the reasons the kit has been re-released.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree. This isn't a kit worthy of £16 today. In 1950 a series 3 kit (which this was) cost 4'6d - which is equivalent to £10.50 today adjusted for inflation. So Airfix are applying a 50% price uplift for new decals. If they had re-engineered the transparencies, I could understand this - but not for a kit with this many faults as it is. For £16 there are many far superior kits available (including from Airfix), and I am positive the MikroMir kit will be superior to this one in every way, without even knowing the price of it.
If you still want to buy the kit - that's fine, it's your money, your choice, all I've done is shown the very real problems with the kit and given some possible solutions and my opinion. I don't think there's more I could do than that, and I am certainly not condoning the kits release "as is", because I don't believe it's a good one.
Well said Carl
@carlsmoot2939 ur bang on mate. I used to respect Manns opinions but he hasnt got the foggiest really.
@@carlsmoot2939 well said.
Who at airfix in their right mind approved this for reissue without checking to see if it was suitable for reissue......or maybe they did check and just didn't care
@@jaws848 yeah, it baffles me - why spend the money getting the decals redone to Cartograph standard for this??
@@MannsModelMoments you said it ....they are wasted on this kit
Simon Kohler was responsible for the release of these kits, on his first day back at Hornby he went to the stores to find all the old tooling, only to be told most of them had been dumped in a skip and sold for scrap. Several tools had escaped thanks to one of the stores men, Kohler decided to re-release them as a classic range, the retailers (including myself) were conned into thinking these were new tools. If I remember right they had a minimum order of six units, al I know is they collected dust on the shelf for about two years, I eventually sold them off and £5 each, taking a loss on them. Kohler was also responsible for resurrecting old Hornby tooling that lacked detail the modern model railway modeler demands, he was also the man behind the introduction of the TT120 range, a range that still lacks track parts, and scenic terrain, you literally have to scratch build everything
@@PartisanGamesLtd and Hornby / Airfix still employ him?
@@PartisanGamesLtd he needs to be fired
Unless you have a particular soft spot for this helicopter or Airfix, I just cant see the point of bothering. There are masses of excellent quality kits on the market today.
@@Mike-mm4mx exactly!
To be honest most of the Airfix models i built in the 70s and early 80s weren't as good as the competition, many of the kits seemed to have worn out tooling and a lack of detail, Tamiya were far superior, as was Matchbox, and the 1/48 scale monogram kits were too. I tended to avoid Airfix.
I am glad I got one, an old boxing from the 60’s but it was part of a second’s sale for $5. I cannot imagine how the thing could possibly be worth the price that’s being asked (new decals or not). The basic kit is simply not worth it.
Thanks for actually building the kit. It takes much more time than just showing the sprues, but it's much more useful as well.
No problem 👍
Anyone who wants to see what's really involved in getting this build right should check out Greg's models version of this. A truly incredible update and possibly the best version that's ever been created.
@@spiders-tours and he'll be on MMM this week to talk about kits like this with me
@@MannsModelMoments Great news, looking forward to that.
Shame the quality is off, but this bought back many nostalgic memories of making this as a kid decades ago. I even had the bloodhound missile to go with it. Hopefully it will be re-engineered at some point, but I doubt Airfix is rolling in cash so might take a while.
I remember this kit well. I got it as a treat from a toy shop in Blackpool in, I would guess, 1974. I wasn't a brilliant modelmaker, but I'd done a good job with the Airfix Sopwith Pup a few months earlier and felt I was getting better. Well, it just took one really bad kit to wreck that growing confidence. The damn fuselage just wouldn't go together. I had to re-glue it a couple of times (from a tube, naturally) and resorted to elastic bands to hold the halves in place. After a lot of effort, I ended up with a dreadful mess and the join still gaped in places. I finished it, but without enthusiasm and -- holding myself responsible for the debacle, because adults would never release a shoddy kit, would they? -- that was pretty much the death of my model building until fairly recently. So, yeah, this Belvedere kit stole my joy fifty years ago. You can imagine my delight at seeing it rereleased. And, apparently no effort has been made to improve it. Just brilliant. I buy a lot of Airfix stuff and am supportive of the company, but I honestly have no idea what they're thinking of when they lob a palpable turkey like the Belvedere out into the marketplace.
Ahhh... Hornby... explains a lot!
You should see their railway division! 😂
Yeah, unfortunately!
I am a professional model maker who builds multiple kits for diorama builds (mostly car kits), and, of all kits i purchase, the Airfix kits are the least detailed. The moulded parts are not designed for mould very well as the parts are vague in their precision.
Even with fettling and sanding, it still makes hard work.
There are many finer detailed kits available on the market.
The great news for me is that my stash contains an earlier boxing in silver plastic with decals NOT by cartograf.My understanding is that the Bond Bug and Auster HAD to have new transparencies as the original moulds were lost/damaged...
@@NOSHER that's true, whereas these SHOULD have been lost!! Lol
@@MannsModelMoments lost,melted, destroyed,stricken from history....this is, unfortunately, another despicable cash grab from Airfix
@@MannsModelMoments agreed
@@NOSHER agreed
I made this kit myself about 30 years ago as a nostalgia trip, it was unbelievably bad, at the time when I wondered how Airfix ever gone away with it? But, having built a few their early kits that I made as a child in the early 1960's some of their others are no better. Thank goodness things have improved. P.S. The best early Airfix kit I ever built is the 1/12 Bentley.
Thanks for sharing!
It's purely a cash-grab. Relying on nostalgia instead of offering newer modelers a good experience.
I've not built or purchased this product, but I can recall a friend doing so in 1974, and even then, as a somewhat 'green' modeller, I wasn't overly impressed with what I saw. This is certainly a product of its time. Having said that, I understand why Airfix have included it as part of their 'Vintage Classics' line. This model is, as far as I'm concerned, purely for nostalgia and nothing more, or for those masochists who are prepared to indulge in an obscene amount of hard work in order to attain acceptable results.
I'm sure Mikro-Mir's soon to be released offering will be most worthy, but the Belvedere is, even though having a relatively short service period in the Royal Air Force, a wholly British design and therefore deserves to be properly represented with a new tool in '72 and '48 from Airfix. If they can produce a beauty with their recent Sea King, imagine what they could do with a Belvedere....or Wessex, or Gazelle, or Whirlwind, or Scout, or Sycamore.......or.....
I digress.😄
Excellent and comprehensive overview as always.👍
It is rather sad that we must rely on other manufacturers to recreate classic subjects of British Aviation history - the Dora Wings Fairey Delta 2 springs to mind
@MannsModelMoments It is indeed. As you correctly state, the FD-2 is a perfect example. A design from the halcyon days of British aviation needs to be represented by a British model company and Airfix would be the perfect candidate. (No disrespect to DW in anyway. Top marks to them for producing this a/c in model form.)
I neglected to agree with you in my previous comments regarding the lovely decal sheet for the Belvedere.......
Complete waste of resources!😒
I built this kit in the early 1970s and it was old then (it was released in 1959). I would say the standard of the kit is no worse than most other kits of the 1950s, and it is better than many. One point I will make, is that you can still buy an original vintage one for about £10. However, you would still have to buy decals as the originals will probably disintegrate when they touch water.
Good points!
It's a bit like buying a Sea Harrier and getting The Flying Bedstead! 🧐😆😅👍
I'm trying to remember which Airfix Vintage Classics kits I've built. I know I've done the Jaguar 420 and the Bond Bug. I don't know if the Maserati Indy was sold as a vintage classic, but it was a re-pop of a vintage kit. The Bug was a really nice building experience, there was minimal flash or issues to correct. The Jag needed more work as there were sink marks to fill and excess plastic to remove, but it came up very nicely. The Maserati was somewhere between the two, mainly suffering because the windscreen was a poor fit. However, this review reminds me of the line from Jurassic Park; “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”
Just because you can re-release an old kit, it doesn't mean it's a good idea to push it to market.
Agreed
In my opinion. The Vintage Classic range is nostalgia bait and I'm all for it. Yes. The tooling is worn out. Yes, the parts don't fit quite right. Yes the detail is lacking, but that's the whole point. They're a challenge to build and to get looking good. Modern tools have fantastic detail and the parts fit together easily (Tamiya, I'm looking at you), but they boring to build.
I've build a majority of the Vintage Classic range and enjoyed every one. Yes, I've added the Belvedere to the stash and look forward to the challenge of doing it justice.
I agree and disagree. Yes, it is nostalgia bait, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. But the "challenge to build" argument I think is pure garbage. I don't think I've ever been "bored" making a modern kit. Lack of fit is not a "challenge" or something to aspire to - if it ism then make a vacform kit or scratch-build, or buy an old eastern european tooled kit from ebay for £3. But a major company profit-raking from a re-issue of bad kits? As another commenter pointed out, you can pick up old releases of this kit for £10 - so why not do that? Re-issuing old kits that you CAN'T get hold of (like the Bond Bug) is a different matter, but this old pile of trash? Nah.
In my youth it seemed every Airfix kit I build fitted perfectly. After building some vintage classics I have to admit that the images from my youth are deceiving. But I have them in my mind being perfect. Or at least being great fun. Which is perfect for me. I have some old 1960' s releases and they fit well. I don' t like the light grey modern plastic, the old "metallic" plastic seemed sturdier and looked better. In the fuselage of the DH Heron is a hole and they forgot the clear parts in my box. Shame on you, Airfix! Still love you...
A kit - any kit, any maker - is but a starting point to assist you in making as good a job as you are capable of. It may in truth be a naff kit, but even so, if it inspires you to have a go, it is worth its weight in gold. I am 82 and have been modelmaking actively since I was about ten, starting with solid balsa kits for a Spitfire and a Hurricane. And, boy, were they basic!
But, you build, you advance and you improve, and you move into disciplines, like flying aircraft, rubber, i.c. Engines, gliders, whatever or, like me, into model railways from ready to run through kits to scratchbuilding. And it frequently starts with a naff kit! So hang in there!
I wonder if maybe you're not actually supposed to assemble the "vintage classics." Maybe they're marketed at oldies as a piece of "nostalgia" (this explains my collection of all of the old Airfix 1/32 scale toy soldiers) 😊
Maybe!
The quality of airsoft kits is beyond a joke, it's a miracle they manage to stay in business.
As someone who got into scale models in the 90s I completely agree. Never understood the brand loyalty, nostalgia is a hell of a drug...
It's highly variable, plenty of their kits are fine to good. IMO steer clear of vintage classics entirely.
Why does Airfix damage its brand by releasing something like this?
Answer: Money.
@@MannsModelMoments An absolutely biased and a ridiculous comment yet again. From a guy who asks for clicks and support for ……… Money.
How do you survive as a modeller, other than the airfix foot in the door, with such blinkers and disregard of what others may want?
What is your problem? Carry on this way and I'll just report you, because you're not adding anything to any sensible discussion here, you're just using any opportunity to have a personal attack on me. If you don't like my videos, watch something else or make your own (I notice you don't) - it'll be better for your blood pressure.
Airfix (Hornby) are the WORST company to do business with of any of the companies I work with, but again you wouldn't know, because you don't have any sort of informed opinion here, just hate. As such, there's no "foot in the door" provided by them. As for the "such blinkers and disregard of what others may want?" - hahahaha - never has "The pot calling the kettle black" been so apt!
@@MannsModelMoments I have sat on your reply comments for over 24 hours .
Feel free to report as everything I have said is factual, yet you tar me with ‘Pot Kettle’!
You decry Airfix yet happy to sell your soul to them for you own gain.
Feel free mate, you are another of the shake and bakes that only posts negative of the product!
Had been planning on picking up a couple of airfix kits for bolt action. I've heard a lot of negative feedback regarding Airfix these days, looks like their practices haven't improved! Sure probably look for aircraft scaled to 28mm
Nice to see a build review - like that format. 👍 Have to admit that doesn't look too bad after some of the Revell kits I have done recently! Luckily I am not that fussed about helicopters so it wouldn't be on my wish list. Airfix could have retooled the clear parts, and a few of the other bits like the rocker switch and wheels on a new clear frame and charged more for it. With that you wouldn't mind working on the fuselage and scratch building some bits.
@@glencwilson I think retooled transparencies would have probably done it, tbh - you kind of don't mind making the effort when you know the manufacturer has put some effort in too...
shame you didn't like it after the hard work you put into it. Not going in my stash now👍👍
Well at one point I was half-minded to complete it, but that front glazing broke my resolve! Maybe a project for the future....
@@MannsModelMoments would be interesting to see finished.
I think your review gives fair warning to anyone attempting to build this kit. I am disappointed that Airfix didn't re-engineer the front canopy and give modellers a fighting chance but that's their decision I guess. I'd have liked to have built this because the machines were built locally and I'm told only 26 were ever built. As to Mikro Mir....well, yes I will wait to see what they offer but it has to be right as I suspect it won't be cheap.
Thanks!
If you ever pick up the rotordyne you will find similar issues, but in that kits case the canopy for the cockpit is a one piece unit.
Wow Alex. It looks a challege. I didn't know so much about it when I ordered it, but I will still give it a go. The bad fit you describe was unexpected.
A pity Airfix didn't make one first.
In my researches, since ordering, I discovered the "protoype" issue, what a shame, a bit like the Fairey Rotodyne (that'll need a lot of work too). However I thought it worth doing some work to "update" it to a production model, not expecting anyone else to be issueing this subject, and me being a helicopter nut.
I plan a visit to Weston when I can programme it in to get some more detailed info. Incidentally you missed the direction of rotation of the rotors (which should be contra rotating and geared together to avoid "blade crash" over the body).
Well I seem to have quite a task ahead!!!!
Lets see what Micromir have to offer.
Incidentally, do you know of any book on the aircraft.
PS, the box art maybe represents the troop deployment demo shown in the promotional film made at the time (that was a prototype).
PPS even the prototypes were upgraded to production standard.
I haven't seen that promotional film - I might check it out!
These re-releases are an exercise in nostalgia, a reminder of how it felt to be a kid again struggling with dubious fit and other "challenges". What they are not is a gap in the market for unusual prototypes to satisfy skilled modellers. One of the things that is unsatisfactory, is vintage classic box artwork appears to be a reproduction from old boxes, not the original artwork, and is often cropped.
@@borderlands6606 they absolutely are an exercise in nostalgia, but with a bit of additional care Airfix could have made this more appealing to a wider audience (as with the Bond Bug and Auster), rather than relying on an aging (and shrinking) nostalgia bait market
Weren't these made cheaply to be in pocket money range at the time though? I recall being able to buy one plus glue as a kid and still have some pocket money. The end result was mostly glue back then 😂
Why do you put the glue above the two fittings parts and not between them?
@@ingocernohorsky it's extra thin cement - the solvent flies into the join by capillary action, and evaporates almost immediately
Great review!
Thanks!
As much as i have been asking for more helicopters from Airfix it looks like this kit came back to bite me in the backside
@@jaws848 lol - be careful what you wish for!
@@MannsModelMoments exactly
What a disgraceful release this is. From the erroneous instructions to the shockingly moulded parts. You have £32 of unsellable stock!
You did more than i was expecting you to build. Thank you Alex
Hmm I built this.kit in the early 1960s as a kid. Believe me this was a great kit for its day especially when you compare to Revell and Lindberg offerings of the late 50s that wern't even to a proper scale. In the day they were constriction toys rather than scale models of today. But skilled modellers as opposedto kit builders did some fine work on them. If you arn't interested in historic kits don't build them and best to compare them to kits of a similar era rather than new kits.
Built one of these as a commission job, eons ago. Tough cookie, but not half as bad as the Bristol Blenheim Mk.IV and the Wellington Mk.III.
It being one of the prototypes mirrors the old story about the venerable Frog DH-110 being the prototype for the Sea Vixen and not a production machine. Or so i've been told.
I've seen far, far worse from post-1991 Eastern Europe and Airfix's 1980s/90s galore on my workbench. Not a good kit, by any standard - even by its time - but not absolutely atrocious.
No vitriol this time.
Have a fantastic weekend, mate.
Cheers.
I was feeling very underwhelmed when I took a look inside the box of mine this week. It looks like a lot of work, and whilst some people enjoy that challenge, I'm not sure I will. Also, as you mentioned, the only option to build a prototype version is frustrating
It really is!
The Belvedere was one of my first kits in the 70´s. In my memory he still looks great. From today’s perspective, he is certainly not the best but anyone who has ever tried a vacuum kit will still appreciate it today...😉
Honestly, I'd rather do a vacform kit!
@@MannsModelMoments 😉 try it...
@@andreas1963ap I've done vacform kits
@@MannsModelMoments ok
What a shame and major miss by Airfix. In its current state it deserves to stay in the past, won’t be going near this one ever, life’s too short!
Agreed!
I remember this kit and I made ( or my brother) iirc. I made 100's in the early 80's we made loads of kits that always needed bending or fixing.
I do remember my brother using a g clamp ( from his woodworking school project ). On a F105 starfighter that had a banana shape fuselage...... lol.
I could go on, but all kits have problems imho most of the time 🤦♂️
I collect all plastic kits I don't have this one it is what it is .Well mmm👍👍👍
@@garrybeard7718 I have two in stock if you'd like one!!! Lol
@@MannsModelMoments love to have it
This kit is older than IO am. All kits released at this time were a challenge. Compared to modern kits, they require a bit of care and attention to get then to look like the real thing.
However, that was not the aim of me and my peers. Whack it together and then use it for air rifle practice.
Their is a real one at RAF Hendon.
Mate, I'm 40 and this kit is older than my dad, Airfix should be ashamed.
@@85inexact Respectfully. You are missing the point. People buying this kit are buying nostalgia. This is true of all the classic kits Airfix re releases. It's a window into the past. Either to relive the building of a favourite kit, or to acquire one that one luted over in the past, without having to pay a collectors premium.
@@GasMan66-p5c Oh I'm well aware it's nostalgia in a box, I'm pretty sure that's what keeps the entire company afloat at this point. You have to understand to sell that quality product at the price point is a total farce, right?
@@85inexact Considering that I used to buy a series 3 kit for 37 English New pence, I can't disagree with that point. However, Airfix has upped its game with many of its new kits, te quality of which is incomparable to the kits manufactured from the 20th century, but I resent that everything has been outsourced to India. One always has the choice on whether to spend the money or otherwise.
for the time this was quite a nice kit.
@@GasMan66-p5c To be fair I have heard good things about the new Airfix kits too.
No it’s got to be that massive kit of the cross channel hovercraft, when you opened the box and the side skirts were in twenty pieces all hard plastic that didn’t fit together and look anything like !
Some say the Tooling is older than The Great Pyramid of Giza.
Buyers remorse- i had this kit on order for a few months and got mine last week. I suspect it will remain in my stash forever. After my disappointment with previous vintage classics such as the westland whirlwind and the H.S 125, i think i will be avoiding future vintage classics!
Unfortunately human memory is unreliable, and as kids we often built things with no expectations or awareness, and it was fun because there wasn't much else competing for our time. That is neither true for us as adults nor of children today, which is why I think many people are disappointed when they revisit these kits
At least it will give you a experience from the 60i-es. There was a lot f crap out there back then.
I've had plenty of experience with bad kits from this period, so don't need to add to it!
@@MannsModelMoments I feel your pain, but perhaps you would like to pass over the experience to a newbie that complains about modern kits :-)
15:11 Actually, the box artwork closely mirrors some of the demonstration flights in this video here. czcams.com/video/zJFNhcS2o70/video.html Theres a couple of instances of the early models being used to drop off squaddies much like the box artwork. I imagine Airfix in the fifties made the kit based on what was known/available at the time and never updated it.
We have been pampered too much by overly engineered modern kits that we are quick to disparage those that were released three generations ago. That being said, modern kits can be so complex that it becomes just as niche and even more difficult to build than those nostalgic kits released by Airfix in the sense that up to what point do you want to smash a kit after attaching the 50th tiny PE part in a multimedia kit that requires two types of glue but you can't smash it because it costs 70 to 100 dollars? Those Airfix kits were built not with detailed accuracy in mind but because it was aimed at the children of yesteryear who after building it will blow it up come new year's day and not think twice about buying another one and blowing it up again. Try blowing up a Meng or Takom kit nowadays. Some decades ago, I got fed up with Italeri's Panther A with zimmerit that I threw it on the floor and even stomped on it, but then I did remember it cost 20 dollars then which was already pricey at that time especially since I live in a third world country, so I rebuilt the damaged kit. A few years ago I bought the Amusing Hobby German multiturret tank the Neubaufahrzeug, and after looking at all the tiny parts in it which included tiny track pins I decided to give it away as a Christmas gift because I wouldn't be able to build it and if I gave up on it it would be a shelf queen until the day I die.
So as I said, these old Airfix kits are built with the kids of yesteryear in mind and the tools that they had then which were so basic and nothing fancy like extra thin cement but thick tube cement that would easily bond those two halves together and fill up any gap. Thick clear parts for a kid won't be a problem because glue smeared clear parts are a rite of passage so what's a little air bubble? Could Airfix have reengineered the clear plastic like it did several others? Sure, but why complain about a clear part when everything else is rudimentary since it's an old old kit?
Is it then the worst Airfix kit? Many other Airfix kits will qualify as well but we purchase it and build it not because we want to apply today's technology towards old kits but because we want to remember our youth, we want to remember mom, dad, grandpa, grandma and imagine that they still are there in the kitchen, or in the living room during sunny days of summer when they have all since passed on. It is Airfix reminding us that our hobby is in mortal peril because we are dying out and we are going through great lengths to pass it on to a younger generation who are glued to devices and computer games.
I think this is a common view amongst a certain set of older modellers, but not one I agree with I'm afraid. I would answer at length, but I've had enough of these comments that I think it's probably worth me doing a video on the subject....
Well it just goes to show how expensive Cartograf decals are if they charge that much for a kit that old
Mann I must say for a kit from the 50's it is not that bad. Yes it has flaws but with good modeling skills it can be overcomed. Back in my day and when I started modeling,these kits were at times all we had. Nisalgia builds yes,bad to today standards,I will give you that one. Just remember this injection molding was just catching on and these kits where made cheap for kids with a little bit of pocket money where we could spend our allowance for a kit,glue and paint. To let you know for a couple of bucks a kid had a model to build. Back in my day star trek came out and my dad bought me that enterprise kit at 20 dollars and it came with the lighting kit. That there should tell you something about modeling. A lot of those kits came in bags and if you got something like a airfix,revell and rewall ...ect you were rolling in high cotton.....😊
I appreciate that, but it's not the middle of the 20th century any more. Standards if living are higher, technology is ubiquitous and model kits fit together. If this was £10 (the inflation-adjusted price from it's release), it would still be a poor offering, but it's £16...for a frustrating experience. With all the alternatives to spend your time, how is this capturing anyone's interest?
@@MannsModelMoments how is it capture anybody interest,easy one to answer. Do you have kids or grandchildren and if so,these are great starter kits. You can teach them a lot from a simple kit like this one.....
@@richardjordan5036 Absolutely not - this is a TERRIBLE kit to give to any child, it would be the WORST possible thing to do. Give them the new P-51D, Bf109F, or any of the other Starter Sets from Airfix and you may garner their interest, but this? Not a chance.
Yeah, this was a dog kit back in the day, so I'm not surprised not a lot has changed. But you get out what you put in, sometime you gotta work for your results.
Jeez, this just shows how spoiled us modern Gunpla builders are, because this looks like agony
Seriously. After jumping from 40k minis to gunpla I can only imagine the engineering that goes into them.
Reading this comment as I finish the HG aerial rebuild lol. Even some of the cheapest gunpla kits have insane engineering
I had a Bristol Belevedere in the early 1960s. I don't remember any problems with the kit
Unfortunately human memory is unreliable, and as kids we often built things with no expectations or awareness, and it was fun because there wasn't much else competing for our time. That is neither true for us as adults nor of children today, which is why I think many people are disappointed when they revisit these kits
It is without doubt the WORST and the BEST Bristol Belvedere kit that money can buy.
Until MikroMir release those, when it will only have one of those accolades!
S@@MannsModelMoments Are they going release one?
@@billgriffin7346 Not just one, but two - as I said in the video, one in 1/72nd and one in 1/48th scale....
Sorry, should have listened to all of the video first!
@@billgriffin7346 No worries!
It was bad the first time round at least airfix could have done a new tool of it.😊
I'd have settled for a new set of transparencies, but apparently we need to look to Ukrainian manufacturers to release great kits of classic British aviation history....
That needs to go in the bin.
I like the more unusual looking kits so had fancied this but will now give it a miss........ Well unless it's extremely cheap!
You can pick them up at shows etc for around £10 or less, which is ok
For all the good work airfix do they release this , which just tarnishes the good kits .
Agreed
Still better than the Airfix old tool Defiant. 😊
I'm not sure about that! Lol
@@MannsModelMoments Oh belive me it is! I made so many changes especially rebuilding the nose with Milliput it became a scratch build!
No, I did not enjoy this review. Without the Airfix kits you mock, there would be no modern super kits to drool over. I am happy to see Airfix re-issue kits from the 1950s and 1960s, so I have a chance to again build the kits I enjoyed in the past, and to try those I missed out on. Good on Airfix for re-issuing the Belvedere.
What a lot of rot. US manufacturers came before Airfix, Revell was not far behind and the Japanese manufacturers also started in the 1960s and have kept going strong when Airfix bankrupted itself. Mismanagement has landed it in administration several times, unlike many of the Japanese kit makers that have remained steady since their inception - so we would absolutely have "modern super kits to drool over" without Airfix.- in fact many of them come from those super-stable Japanese makers who have been ahead of the game since they started.
I could use this model for parts to make other helicopters or futuristic choppers.
You could, though it's an expensive source for that purpose
I think the worst Airfix model is the horribly inaccurate 1/72 CAC Boomerang
I've never heard transfers called "decalles" before. Is that an Americanism?
We call them decals in the US.
No, though it is pronounced differently in different regions, which gets some (very narrow minded people) VERY upset!
Admittedly I've not built the Belvedere, I've been tempted rhough.
Yes, the kit is far from perfect, the canopy is, well, should be outlawed (as said).
But are we just used to kits where we empty the box on the bench and it falls together- no sanding, no reviting, no filling, just a shake and ta da. Have we been spoilt with the likes of Eduard, ZM etc?
This is a vintage classic, some reverse engineering would have been nice but it's an old mould. Personally I look at the filling, sanding, flash removal and even rebuilding kit parts from scratch as part of modelling, yes it's nice when kits fit well and so on but faults and issues add to the enjoyment, the overall accomplishment of a good looking completed build.
Apologies for the waffle.
Absolutely no apologies required. I concur with you completely.
I’ll bet it’s not 19p!
No, indeed it's not...
As the saying goes..Money for old rope
Very true!
Reality check required here I think. Greg did a great job with the same kit.
He did, and he mentioned how bad it was, how much work it was, and how it almost made him give up several times.
What does this mean, "reality check required"? The kit is undeniably and irrefutably outdated and trash. Take the nostalgia goggles off, that's the reality...
I have 3 of them in my stash,and am looking forward to building them,though,they will be painted pink purple and orange,the colours my granddaughters chose, although this isn't the first time airfix got it wrong,the fairy battle airfix produced was the prototype of that aircraft
Airfix have some bloody nerve with these Crap Old Kits. OK, if its something nobody else has moulded then fine, reissue them. But for the love of god, keep the price down around £9.99.
Have a look on Airfix latest RNLI Shannon Class. Model designed now and can compete with 'quality' of this kit. They even ask £9.99 for decla sheet with all boat numbers because kit has got only ONE number! Shameful attack on modellers' pockets.
Yeah I think the decal sheet was a huge mistake TBH
@@MannsModelMoments their excuse was the fact it is 'starter kit'. If only paints and glue added to this kit would be useful in any way :) (brushes are ok IMHO). Curious if that re-issued Severn Class boat has got all the numbers on the decal sheet and its price is almost the same like Shannon Class, but complexity and attention to details is uncomparable.
The masochistic in me wants to give it a go.
If you're doing it as an informed modeller, I don't think that's an issue - it takes all sorts!!
Really wanted this kit but 1 A & A kit build is enough this looks dreadful
@@alexmoore2831 I'm happy to sell you one if you want it ...lol
Surely the clue is in the title Vintage Classic. The kit is a product of it’s time. Very few kits of the 1950’s and 1960’s were any better. If you want an Airfix kit to complain about how about the Bell P-39 Airacobra. . Airfix have updated the box art and the decals but the monstrosity in the box dates from 1964. Even Airfix don’t have the brass neck to call it a Vintage Classic.
@@ericbeaton7211 yes I remember the Bell P39 Airacobra! What a shocker
У...у...паровозная клепка...какая ностальгия!Но мне нравится!🎉
Not a fan of airfix vintage classic range but this one does look bad. 👎
@@chrisflowers6479 it was!!
That cutty sark kit was pretty shit.
AGREED!
Well, I personally consider it pointless to judge and criticize vintage kits from the modern perspective for their lack of accuracy and even sick fit. Each kit should be judged according to the standards of the era it belongs to, and by comparison with their contemporaries, and we all know how "technology" back in the 1950s was...
In my case, and as far as I can remember now, the worst kits that I built to date were also Airfix kits (1/72 SB2C Helldiver and 1/48 Hawker Hurricane), and both had serious fit issues which I attributed to the manufacturing of the products even by comparison with contemporaries which were better manufactured (Hasegawa, Tamiya, and maybe also Italeri and Revell); but never judging them from current standards.
Of those two kits that I have just mentioned, the first one was one of the very few that ended up in the dustbin before the work was completed. Its main problem was the non-existent fit between the wing set and the fuselage. The wing set was bent downward, making it that there was always a large gap or seam at one end or the other between wings and fuselage. Probably it would have been enough to dip the wing set in boiling water and, when the plastic was soft enough, bend it carefully until it reached the rightful position, but back then I did not think of that. Same could have possibly be done here with the fuselage halves.
As long as pieces fit together well enough, and the model is recognizable enough so as to make it unnecessary to explain what kit is that, I am okay with vintage kits, with all their drawbacks. Besides, in a way they make me remember merry old times from my childhood, when everything mas more artisan (which gives way more credit and value to the work of people at the company than it should do today- everything done with computers) and in a way more "humane" and even real.
Injection points on windows and such? I don't care- that lets me build a vintage model quite natural as it came, as it was manufactured. I am not that delicate and sensible to certain details. No need for a drama on how inaccurate do moulds look or how imperfect their fit is. I just (try to) enjoy vintage kits as they are.
Let's make the most of it, because one day these old moulds will be gone forever and we may miss building one of those.
I absolutely disagree. These kits are being sold at 2024 prices, so they should be judged on their own merits , not with some sort of retro-fitted rose-coloured glasses. If you want to builf this kit for nostalgia (the ONLY reason I can see to build it), then that's fine - enjoy. However, I'm always going to critique something that demands the same money and MORE time and effort than other kits available today, It's the same reason I choose to drive a modern car, and not a Ford Anglia. Some might look back with teary eyes at these old motors and kits, but in every measurable way, they are inferior to modern productions - that's just progress. People seem to think the past was better than today, but in most metrics it simply wasn't - people were poorer, lived shorter, harder lives with fewer opportunities. We may have lost some things along the way, but let's not kid ourselves that "things were better back then", because they weren't - and this kit is a reminder of that.
@@MannsModelMoments I did not say that "the past was better", but rather that I am aware of the limitations of the technology back then, and (again) the merit of producing these items using traditional tools. That a computer does the work well is no oddity. Trying to do the same with traditional tools has way more merit. You said it yourself in the first sentence: the merit of been artisan work (while today it's a computer that does the whole work- where's the merit there?). It´s not nostalgia nor anything of the like, but simply appreciating the hard work behind the production of an item. Quality has improved undeniably, yes, but it´s not just that (the end) but also how was it made be, the process behind it.
A good example, from my own personal experience, is the difference between Airfix's 1/72nd classic Tiger Moth and the newest release with upgraded moulds. No way can they be compared, because they belong to different eras done with different tools.
As for the price, well, opinions are divided about it. Vintage kit lovers do not seem to bother so much about it and they buy them under the awareness that as time goes by it'll be harder to find any; a view probably shared by manufacturers and sellers. Detractors, on the other hand, hold that prices might be absurdly high. I am in a kind of in-between position. It depends on the kind it particular; I cannot make any generalization.
In any case, and still continuing with prices, I am not sure now, but I would say that in the past the prices for kits were not way lower than they are today, at least judging from my personal experience. Hand-crafted products are normally (or at least at times) not so cheap. As you yourself said, in the past there was more poverty than today and had fewer opportunities, which inevitably implies that the prices for kits were unaffordable for most people then.
As a conclusion, I personally consider vintage kits "better" than modern ones in terms of merit behind the manufacturing process, not quality.
And I don´t see the point of talking about driving old or new cars. In the past, cars were done to last (that is why today we have classic cars aged 30 or over), while we are all aware of the fact that the world today spins so fast that living expectancy of everything shortens, particularly when there are computers involved. Today, a car becomes old at the age of 10 (if not sooner), while up to the 80s at least that age was the age of "maturity". Who has got at home a computer aged 10 years or over? Not so many I guess. The same with cars.
Besides, for manufacturers today it's more beneficiary to sell by the thousand non-stop and forget about it than having a lower rate of sales and repairable and lasting products. What benefits do manufacturers get from products of theirs who are repairable and under repair? Not so much, I'd say. Therefore, modern production of cars is not absolutely better than the older one "in every respect". Just make a proportion between durability and price, and see in the end which turns out to be a fraud.
Most people today own a classic car just to "boast" on having a car different to any modern one, but they are still means of transport that can do more than just taking you from A to A. We are still using our original 1978 Citroën GS for routes around the city when our most modern car is unavailable, so we can still go from A to B with it. Safety is another story, yes.
@@Alantheleopard I think your premise is flawed. You say "a computer does all the work" today, but that's just a massive misunderstanding of the technology and dies a disservice to modern "artisans". Just because you are sculpting using a virtual medium does not mean you are less skilled than one working in a physical one, you just use different tools. CNC machining can produce better, more accurate renditions if those sculpts, but a person is still researching and designing them in exactly the same way, and so much MORE goes into making a modern kit than one in the 20th century.
@@MannsModelMoments Modern "artisans" are essentially computer operators. A computer does for you that for instance two panel lines run in parallel, or that riveting is distributed homogeneously, or simply that pieces are well-designed and manufactured so that they fit together perfect. An artisan from the 20th century has to do all this directly, by himself, without any intermediary tool apart from probably ruler and something else.
I am not saying that current computer operators designing pieces are "less skilled" than their ancestros with their manual work, because they are two different kinds of "manual work" (just to try and find a generalizing term for both). To design 3D pieces with a computer program you need knowledge on computer programming that not everybody has, the same way that not everybody has the same skills to actually work their own products directly by hand. But I wouldn't be surprised if these two kinds of workers exchanged roles, they would both feel like "lost", not sure what to do, and how.
For you to see that I am not that flawed, a few days ago I watched a video on how does Academy produce their kits today (probably you have seen it too). To make it short, in it you can clearly see that everything starts with computer-designing of the pieces and the sprues or skeletons containing such pieces. Then these are transferred to an industrial 3D-printing machine. The physical contact of the artisans with the products that they "manufacture" is then minimum, and even null during the manufacturing process as such.
At most (and being a bit ironic) it´s the employees at the factory checking whether pieces have been well-produced, and then classifying the skeleton pieces to distribute them into bags and then into boxes the only actual physical contact that they have with the pieces. I guess that it's the same (or pretty similar at least) with any other brand today.
That makes things surely easier and faster, without a question, but then again, it lacks the merit of actual and real artisan work. If there is no real physical contact between worker and its product during the manufacturing process, then I have my doubts that we can talk about "modern artisans", if it's not in an ironical or at least general way. What we should talk about today is rather industrialization. Inevitable because of progress and with its undeniable pros (like better quality and a larger and quicker mass production). But no real artisan work as such.
@@Alantheleopard That's just called progress. I am sure many decryed some of the loss of "artisan" jobs at the start of the industrial revolution, but so what?
If you are looking for "artisinal" products, they still exist in all types of industry - rugs, jewelery - even cars - and that includes model kits too. There are still small companies making limited-run kits without computers, usually of unusual subjects. That isn't the same as a large company re-issuing an unchanged tool from 65 years ago (which has already paid for itself, so with a higher than original profit margin) and charging 2024 prices for it. I have absolutely no problem judging a company and kit that does that by their own modern standards.
Wonderful. Thank you. Vintage Classics are a con
@@juliangriffiths7298 Generally I have no issues with them as nostalgia builds, but only when they do actually have some sort of fit!
My experience has been different. I built the Vintage Classic Whirlwind helicopter and, despite the awful glazing, managed to produce a decent replica.
@@guypenrose5477my westland whirlwind vintage classic did not go well - ive packed it away and try and finish it in December. Mind you, their P80 jet was a nice little dote of a thing. I went and both another P80 for the stash. But that was the exception to the rule
An rrp of £15.99 is at least £15.99 to much.
lol
A terrible kit of a terrible aircraft.
Indeed!
It’s an old kit , I’d accept it as it is and enjoy the challenge
I totally agree. People get too soft and complainy when a kit doesnt measure up to modern computer generated kits that just fall together when you poor the parts out of the box. Old Airfix kits are what you test your abilities on. Work with what you got and make it better, its the Airfix way. Real bareback modelling.
What a lot of rubbish. Why would I waste my time trying to fix a kit that wasn't designed or manufactured properly? Do you buy a car with missing pieces or bits that don't work and accept it because "that's how cars used to be"? No. It's called progress. There is ONE reason to buy this kit, and it's nostalgia. To pretend anything else is deluding yourself.
@@HOTICE976 Hilarious. "Real modellers only work with crap". I've seen some crazy gatekeeper angles, but scale modelling gatekeepers are a special breed...
As box indicates: Vintage Classics. Model is from 1959 so it's a product of its era and should not be compared to later times models. Times were quite different back then.
And at no point did I compare it to a current tooling anywhere in the review - however Airfix are not asking an inflation-adjusted 1959 price for this, they're asking for a 60% increase on that, and I'm judging it on that 2024 monetary value. I stated that nostalgia is the main reason for building this kit, and I stand by that,.
I would have built the kit the way it was to show how bad it is
@@peterdiepenthal4090 I mean, I kinda did?
What part of 1959 didn't make since? 😄
?