WOW! This kit is RUFF! I guess I'm spoiled by Tamiya's 1/32nd Spits. I'm building the MkXVI. I'll wait on the 1/24th Hellcat, or maybe not purchase it at all.
Airfix spend a majority of their product development budget on R and D and design - fine, then take all that great design work to a third world, less than minimum wage country who turn a potentially great kit into crap. And this isn't the first kit Airfix has buggered up this way either; their 24 scale kits are all flawed under the same Production system. Thankyou so much for having the guts to tell the truth and shine a spotlight on what, until Airfix returns production to the UK, will continue to haunt this Company and it's revenue stream.
Something went wrong with this kit, at the design or molding stage. I have built most of the recent 1/48 Airfix new tools and they are realy good. Sea Fury, Blenheim, Mustang, Spitfire MKI, Walrus and Hurricane. I am no fanboy, just honest. They are not Tamiya but they are great value for money. Someone at Airfix needs a paddling for this kit, for bad design or for the decision about which company was used to press it.
I have built the recent Airfix kits and they hall all had problems of some sort eg short shot parts, misaligned moulds etc. The Blenheim had a fair few sink marks of which a number needed filling they were that bad. The Spir 14 is not 'great' but it is better than the Academy kit, though it has plenty of space for improvements.
@@davidharvey8179 I had very slight sink marks on the fuselage halves and some minor flash. The only other Blenheim in 1/48 is the old Classic Airframes which is not in the same league. We are spoilt these days, if you want perfection buy Tamiya, but where is their Blenheim?
Bit harsh towards the other reviewers there Paul, not sure how many you watched but 3 of them built it and raised a few of the same points, not quite as thoroughly though. Otherwise a very comprehensive review from yourself as always, thanks.
Thank you for your comments. Yes, I've seen the other reviews. I confess not every minute of the "in box" critiques because I find them generally useless since they offer no information of how the parts actually fit together. Having been involved with model companies and publications in the past, I'm well aware of soft-peddling or ignoring certain issues. What I personally don't appreciate is, purchasing a kit based on that type of "review" and being surprised by junk ... and I've been around far too long to beat around the bush.
Is this what Airfunk India looks like. They better rethink this or go bye bye. I have the mark 1 and 5 in assembly right now and am not that impressed with them either. As always I like your well-grounded approach and the techniques you hand-off to us.
Thanks for this thorough and objective review. Airfix has been a bit of a double-edge sword since I began building their kits in the 1960s - unique subjects, hit-or-miss execution. But to this day I’ll say that building the Airfix 1/72 Short Sterling as a ten-year-old was one of the best modeling experiences I’ve had. With that kit, the Short Sterling Profile Publication, and my dad’s Paasche H airbrush in hand, I fell in love with modeling. I for one am glad Airfix is still out there.
Another great video, Paul. I wish you were wrong, but I just received this kit from Hannant's, and my inspection confirms what you have said. The British model magazines rave about each new Airfix release and compare them favorably with Tamiya kits. They have to cheer for the home team, but I really wish their praise was justified.
Thanks for the clear review. Every claim you make is well backed up. I think the people excusing the kit as being less expensive or something an experienced model builder would have no trouble fixing are missing the point. People willing to excuse a poor kit to save a buck will be able to judge whether it is worth it in this case. Experienced modelers can decide how masochistic they are feeling. Finally, people like me who don't have a lot of time for modeling can see that buying this kit will just result in frustration and dissatisfaction.
Airfix are all over the place it seems. They’ve released some excellent kits over the past few years and then they have a brain burp and let loose this one. I’ve built one and Mr Budzik is absolutely spot on in his review; he definitely did not acquire a dodgy kit. Mine has exactly the same issues, as I’m certain Mr Budzik’s other three did, too. I don’t mind a challenge when I build a kit, after all we are kit builders, not assemblers. But that being said when a mainstream manufacturer wants you to part with your hard earned money, they should provide you with a better engineered product. Airfix’s quality control needs to be upped, and promptly. I can only hope that their up and coming 1/24 scale Hellcat is far far superior to this Spitfire.... Thank you kindly for your honest and unbiased review Mr Budzik. I look forward to watching future productions from your good self. Best Wishes. Simon
Airfix's mistakes with this model are to be expected with limited-run kits, not mainstream releases. Shame that this looks like a considerable step backwards in quality, as this is a great subject. Oh, well... :(
I'm no Airfix 'fanboi', and detest your trolling attempt (guess this is what you wanted ...). I DID start building model kits c. 1970, when Airfix kits came in a plastic bag, and whilst they lack subtlety and refinement compared to the Big Two, they still have my loyalty. The world would be a sadder place without them, and indeed, a sadder place with comments like yours.
Thanks again ( watched part 1 prior ) saved some money, as was looking at buying this kit. The wing root isn't even following the same angle in your still shot. Terrible quality throughout. The 1/75 Kits aren't too bad, all said, how they can make a larger version with worse tolerances in a miracle in modern engineering - Go India !
I bought the Academy Mk.XIV kits when they came out and soon after the KMC correction sets. I've hesitated in building them in hope that someone would come out with a better kit. Watching this I would compare this Airfix kit to those LTD kits we saw in the 90's. it seems to feature more of a suggestion of rather than actual detail and looks a bit toyish. There's really no excuse for this level of crudeness when other recent kits from Airfix are much better. I'm going to save some money and go ahead and build my old Academy kits. A very helpful review of the kit.
Thanks for the VERY THOROUGH review! Based on your review, I’m going to delete this off my “wishlist” and wait one day for a good Spit XIV. Why build marginal models when there are so many good ones out there. And I didn’t get your comments about the “Southern Hemisphere” people.
Nice to see a modeller who looks into the deep facts and engineering of a kit rather than just going gagga over the subject and jumping in the brand band wagon. Many times I’ve tried to highlights to model club members when they show off their latest purchase. They get all defensive and flustered when I pick it apart and tell them they bought a box of garbage. Airfix, or more like Scarefix as I refer to them as, isn’t on my list of go to kits at all. After I build my first Tamiya P-51 Mustang, it gave me a real wake up call. They seem to base their marketing strategy on “If it’s a Spitfire it will sell regardless of how bad we make it”.
I've just built a 1/144 Spitfire XIV l bought from Japan,and the quality is as good as this,despite it's diminutive size.Great review though.At least people know now what to avoid.....
I should have seen the review before I bought this kit. (Tamiya's one was out of stock.) This review shows everything I felt frustrated while I was making the kit.
Looks like an old Matchbox kit with more detail. Needs aftermarket wheels/tires, gear, and maybe gun port/barrels, sand trailing edges thin, milliput the f out of the seams, fill panel lines and re-engrave.
Good series and some very valid points, Paul. Thanks for sharing. The two relatively recent Airfix kits I've worked (P-40B/C and P-51D) have had a lot of flash but were decent builds, especially the Mustang. My standards (and skills) are admittedly lower than yours, however.
Thanks again for another very informatiive video, Paul. If you're going to Chattanooga for the Nats I'd be very pleased to buy you a beverage of your choice. And I hope you choose beer...
@@brianhurley6289 I wouldn't call it a crappy kit. Yes it needs a little work, but that's ok to me. Sure I like Tamiya kits, but look what they've released lately. Another mk.1 spitfire, a bf109, a ki61. I want something different, and if it takes a little work, that's ok.
I got to say that was an impressive review. It’s disappointing to see that some companies just don’t understand that the products need to be great to be truly successful. You would of thought Airfix would know better. Keep up the great work.
Thank you for for a comprehensive review! Unfortunately Airfix have already shown us that they can do better, so I am willing to wait for another Mk XIV.
Excellent review, and I think you just saved me from buying one - I like Spitfires but there are enough great kits on the market of other versions to keep me busy for a while. However, maybe I'm a bit slow today, but since I am writing this from South Africa I just have to ask: What did you mean at 1:10 when you were referring to modelers "not living in the Southern hemisphere"?
Thumbs up on the review. Your mixed findings corresponds with my experience of "new Airfix" kits. I built a 1/72 C-47 (I greatly prefer 1/72 for multi-engined planes because of space restrictions). It was a toughie. The wing connected with a twin spar that fit very badly and required serious surgery. The interior required surgery if you wanted the fuselage to join correctly. The clear parts were a real disappointment - the front windscreen fit badly and that's hard to fix on a "Gooney." I was warned, correctly, to seat the cockpit side windows before closing the fuselage instead of after per instructions - either one could easily have fallen into the interior. After the dust cleared, the kit was okay - better than its ancient Italeri competitor. Better was the Airfix 1/48 P40/A or B. It went together with only minor issues (the canopy bit back - and clear part problems are never good) although the panel lines and detailing are "soft". Things ended up very nicely and it's certainly a better kit than the ancient Academy P40B. The best thing about recent Airfix releases is that many are of very important planes that are not widely produced by others: the C-47 and P40A were examples. I'm hoping that the P-40A is the "real" Airfix because I have their 1/48 Stuka and 1/48 Hurricane I. (Both appear under the Tamiya label - but the plastic comes from Italeri which, judging from my experience with their 1/72 "new tool" Sunderland is not a good recommendation.) I also have a 1/72 HE-111 and B-17G. And I have their 2014 release of the BF-109E. Now I've got a decision because Tamiya made a BF-109E in the 90's and that vintage of kits was very good. There's a review online comparing the build of the new Airfix Spitfire V and the 90s vintage Tamiya SpitV - the reviewer gave the Tamiya a solid win. So eBay may well see the Airfix 109. Might also rethink the HE-111 in favor of Hasegawa. (Anyone who is hardcare and a fan of Spit XVIs, might be interested in the new Tamiya release of a 1/32 Spitfire XVI (for only about $150): but I know fans of 1/32 planes almost worship the Tamiya releases in that scale.) And perhaps Airfix will think about 1/72 B-24 and B-26 - a decent kit of either plane would be really sweet.
Bob, is there a problem with downloading and saving these videos? I'm not having the same issue for other RU-vid pages but yours seem to not want to cooperate. I can't have a gap in my personal Paul Budzik Video Library! ☺
this is just too bad after some of their other late releases, this looks like a load of crap right up there with lindberg. but at least lindberg has a small excuse the the molds that they are using are 60 years old.
I'm quite surprised how thick the trailing edges are as their 72nd stuff had trailing edges you could peel spuds with! It wouldn't be a deal breaker for an old seasoned modeler like me, but this would put off a lot of folks who had only made Tamigawa models.
hi paul, thanks for this review. actually i was interested in the subject but now i'll leave it there, not just for the hit or miss that this kit is but rather the unacceptable way airfix designed it and put it on the market. regarding this aspect, @ 8:54 you make a difference between an actual model maker and a chap that has been building models for a few years. what separates the two in your opinion? when someone can actually be called model maker? if someone just build oob kits is he just an assembler or can be considered modeler? hope for your answer, i would really like a discussion in this regard. greetings from italy
Airfix is a good company that makes some really nice kits so this poor production is a big disappointment. Shure is no Tamiya but this is not acceptable.
So it's not what it should be, I didn't say it was a piece of junk and don't buy it. I've just identified some of the problems I see and let you know what to look out for. I'm building it for real as a early F XIV and I'll show how to address the issues.
Any panel line on a 1/48 aircraft is generally incorrect as you normally would not see them in that scale. Apart from that, Airfix is not 'trash' as there are many manufacturers who make worse kits and cost more. Airfix has produced some buetiful kits but these latest ones have suffered from lack of QC or , more to the point, bad design and manufacturing.
Being a modern model designer requires a pretty rare mix of skills, abilities, interests, and aptitude and attitude. IF a model company can even find an individual that meets (even close to) the right profile in each characteristic within that matrix, they need to be able to compensate him or her at a level that is sufficient to keep that person from finding what is probably better-paying work in another field where they are less likely to face the constant barrage of negative public feedback that is typical in the modern (internet dwelling) modelling community. Then, that model company has to be able to integrate that person into their larger organization that includes tooling shop (or vendors) people, marketing, graphic design, etc. Each one of those disciplines ALSO has it's own archetypical "ideal" skillset/personality type, and they don't all mesh well. Onboarding a new designer, probably fresh out of design school (sorry guys, but at some point you HAVE to bring in new talent and develop it) is incredibly complex, and I think that, with modern low staffing levels that most model companies maintain out of economic necessity, there isn't always going to be an experienced senior designer around to review every design decision made by younger, probably inexperienced staff. Add to that the fact that the pool of experienced model makers is shrinking rapidly, and the odds of finding someone who ISN't just "some chap" are pretty low.
Well you have certainly found every reason not too ...so I suppose any sort of creative integration would be beyond your consideration. Which might be a good excuse for stagnation and speaks volumes as too what we might expect in the future.
@@scale-model-workshop As a professional working in this field, with years of design studio experience, I am simply enunciating the realities that model design studios face. That recognition of reality does not preclude my creative problem solving. It's not an excuse, it's just reality. One can't address reality and ideate solutions without first recognizing the specific challenges.
Hey Paul, I was trying to build an Academy Mk XIVe and I’m aware that they got the nose profile wrong. I toyed with the idea of resin but I’m not a huge fan of it myself. Not large pieces, anyway. In your opinion, would it be worthwhile combining the Academy and Airfix kits to get a more accurate result?
It’s Airfix. It’s a cheap kit for children. You’ve been around long enough to know this. They will never produce a high quality kit that falls together. Their box art budget is probably higher than their tooling budget.
Thanks for the review. Your right it is an odd kit. Its a bit of mish mash. a few new touches from their latest kit (mark V) and a bits out of the parts bin for the rest. Reminds me of the old Mark XII. But its really the only Griffon game in town. (Lift your game Eduard) Strange choice of kit the XIV LF, should have been an Airfix Club kit and the 1st release an XIVe. Lets face the Tamiya kit is not without it flaws, over detailed cockpit (all wasted when it buttoned up) the horrendous price and 1 piece elevators ( you rarely see a spit with flat elevators) this and its Airfix siblings aren't that bad, good shape, well detailed and easy to build. If there are faults we are supposed to be model builders and able to fix these flaws.
