Anyone know anything about this model? A great deal on it and most other Classic Airframes models at Sprue Bros…
What do you want to know about it? It is an early CA kit - “typical” limited-run type moldings, large sprue gates, slightly soft plastic, with resin detail parts. Fit isn’t too bad once you spend some time cleaning up the parts. Accuracy is decent too, with a few minor issues depending on which specific Walrus Mk you wish to portray.
What about cockpit details, etc…?? Markings options?
Was also wondering about this 72nd scale offering…
I can’t speak as to the CA version, but I just finished the Revell Germany version in 1/72.
It’s a repop of the Matchbox kit, by all accounts one of their later and better releases. External fuselage detail (such as there is) is all raised, a few panel lines and wind deflectors, clean and unobtrusive (and easy to remove and rescribe if one desires). Interior detail consists of a stick/wheel, L-shaped slab seats, and 2 1/2 crew figures to inhabit them. Flying surface detail consists of restrained ribbing and shallow groove outlines of control surfaces (though not the trenches that Matchbox was famous for). Canopy is fairly thick but fit reasonably well. 2 markings versions supplied - the box scheme, a Fleet Air Arm bird from the Pacific, and a post-war French Navy a/c in natural metal o/a
Construction was straightforward. Nearly every seam needed a touch of putty & sanding, with a little heavier action required on the rear fuselage seams. Only real problem areas were the engine mounts and the landing gear. The upper and lower engine struts were each a single piece that was designed to carry through the nacelle, presumably providing proper alignment. (The engine on the real a/c had a thrust line offset 3 degrees to starboard, which the kit seems to show, so the one-piece struts may have seemed like the best solution to the unwary modeler trying to “fix” the offset.) My dry-fitting showed the upper struts to be a tad too long, so I just severed upper from lower, mounted the engine nacelle to the wing in what looked like the proper position, then fitted and trimmed the upper struts when the top wing was on and “square.” Much grief was saved.
The landing gear struts are close to scale-slender, with insubstantial locating pins and a difficult angle whether up or down. I opted for down, and ended up doing a little trimming on the port side struts to get a proper “sit,” but it’s barely visible.
I used the kit decals and was mildly surprised - Revell AG’s decals always look (to me) tough, grainy and non-transparent (clear areas) on the sheet, but they settled well with a touch of Solvaset here and there and the carrier disappeared nicely with Future Clear above and below.
Rigging was…well, if you set out to rig a 1/72 biplane, you pretty well know what you’re up against going in. Leaving the wing floats off until the last is a very, very, VERY good idea.
All in all it was great fun with relatively little frustration, and the Walrus looks like nothing else. Two ironing boards flying in formation with a sleek fuselage mounted oddly beneath.
Regards
Hmmmmm…I’m sure the finished product looks fine but sounds like a bit more work than I would like to put into it. Anyone have any experience with the 48th scale CA version?
The CA Walrus is expensive for what you get. It doesn’t even include a full set of walkway stencils. Take a serious look at the SMER re-pop of the Merit kit. For all its age, it’s a decent model, with recessed rivets and panel lines, and good outlines, for rougly 1/10 the price.
Sure, you have to scrachbuild the interior, but it’s not too difficult with some decent references.
Finally, the Matchbox/ Revell Europe kit is also very nice, if you put in a bit of detail work. I have two in the stash, and did this with one, in a mood of ‘what if’ silliness:
Cheers,
Chris.
The CA kit is miles ahead of the Smer/Artiplast kit, which is actually 1/50 scale and was originally molded in the late 60’s. The cockpit detail in the CA kit is good, that is where most of the resin parts go. Give me a few days to get back home and I will be able to tell you about the marking options, etc, and scan the directions, etc. for you.
Disagree. Yes, the CA kit is better than the SMER kit, but at ten times the price, so it should be. It’s easy enough to scratchbuild all the cockpit detail which will be visible on the completed model (I know, I’ve done it), and the shapes are at least as good as the CA kit.
Incidentally, the original Merit kit dates from the late 1950s, not the late 1960s, and is truly remarkable for its time. But then firms like Revell and Renwall were doing some excellent stuff at the time, too.
Sure it requires a bit of work, but are we modellers or assemblers of plastic kits?
Cheers,
Chris.
Well the price difference depends on ones perspective. I agree it is easy enough to scratch build all the details, but the original poster mentioned he didn’t want to put all the effort into the Matchbox / Revell kit so I figured they wouldn’t want to put the effort into fixing up the Smer kit as well. As for the modelers vs kit assemblers debate, well if one is a true modeler why start with a kit at all why not just start with a block of plastic? Again it depends on what ones perspective is. Any kit requires work. I have seen plenty of Tamiya/Hasegawa/etc kits buily poorly, even though those are kits that “require no work” to put together. Just because a kit is newer, or older, or includes more detail, or costs more, or contains resin, or doesn’t contain resin, or whatever doesn’t mean that one kit takes more work to complete than any other. And even if it did why does it matter. Why do you appear to be condemning someone because they want to build a kit that has a higher price than an older one that is cheaper? Why on some of these boards do threads always degenerate into modelers vs assemblers debates? We all enjoy the hobby to our own levels of satisfaction. Degrading someone because they don’t want to scratchbuild an interior when there is an option for them to purchase a kit with the items already included is very negative and narrow minded. Saying one MODEL is better or worse than other is ok, saying a MODELER is just a kit assembler is a personal attack.
Sorry to hijack your post MR.
Bronto - both the SMER/ Merit and CA Walrusses require the application of modelling skills. I just think that if I’m going to apply modelling skills to a kit, I’d rather use them to do something creative, such as scratch-build detail, than to carry out chores such as cutting out vac-form transparencies and remove and clean up resin pour stubs. And still have some £45 in my wallet to spend on other things.
I would also suggest that in some important respects, the SMER kit is the easier build. For example, unlike the CA kit, the SMER kit features injection-moulded glazing, locating tabs for the wings and tailplanes, and locating holes for the struts.
Incidentally, the supplementary decal sheet for the CA kit, which includes the ‘footstep’ walkway markings not included in the kit decal sheet doesn’t appear to be available any more. The SMER kit’s decal sheet includes these markings. In fact, if memory serves, CA’s supplementary decal sheet, when it was available, cost more than the SMER kit, decal sheet included!
BTW, my buikd notes (and, admittedl, it was some 10 years ago that I built it) say that, in span and length, it scaled out as 1/48, not 1/50, despite what it may have said on the original Merit box.
Cheers,
Chris.