Azur 1-72 Sea Otter - complete disaster!

[Snorry]

Bought one. Been happy for two days. Today I decide to compare kit with photos of real ac and... You saw the topic title, did you?

At first, fuselage. The only things that really resembles real Sea Otter are cockpit and fin. Entire fuselage deformed in shape beyond all limits! In scale, if we choose bottom step as the anchor point :

Cockpit moved 1 mm backwards;

Nose is 3 mm shorter and have different shape in side view (looks like on the first prototype);

Fuselage aft of the wings is 6-7 mm shorter! And it have wrong cross-sections, especially near the fin. There are no means to cure it.

And that is not all! Font portion of engine cover (exhaust collector ring) is considerably narrower, bulges on cover are not on proper places. And wings... Both has a great dihedral - feature not seen on any photo. On the contrary, upper wing on photos is almost plain, and lower has at least twice less dihedral.

Wheel bays are in wrong position (3 mm forward) and wheels itelf have wrong (almost flat) covers instead of proper conic.

Мау be there are another flaws in this kit, but for me that's enough!!! And decal sheet, where are no step markings ("boot tracks'), seen along all span on both wings on photos...

The only "good" news for this kit is that in shape it almost copies earlier Aeroclub one, so it is the best Sea Otter on market. But it is not such thing I hope to recieve for my 38 bucks!!! I'm very angry with those czechs, who make such bad models for such big price!!!

In Edda there is a story about "redemption of otter" - the great treasure, later becomes known as gold of Nibeungs and Rheingold; there was a curse on it: it will brings misfortune to its owner. And I also hope my money will bring misfortune to Azur for what they do with my lovely airplane!!!

Edited January 31, 2011 by Snorry

[MarkoZG]

I second that!

Although I don't have this kit, due to my previous experience with MPM/Special Hobby/Azur kits I can confirm your findings.

It is amazing how big mistakes they are making in their kits. Despite some excellent engineering and good impression upon opening the box, any comparison with photos of actual aircraft brings sorrow and bitter disappointment.

For example, their Frrom-Azur range is greatest disaster of all. High prices and highly inaccurate kits. Rogozarski IK-3 is so different from the real aircraft that it is hard to imagine what was their master modeler looking at. It even doesn't have gun openings or cannon muzzle - just imagine this on Bf 109 or Spitfire! WW2 fighter without any trace of armament!

Ikarus IK-2 is also a sad story - at first glance a superb kit, but with real analysis I came to the conclusion that there is virtually no single accurate part in it. From the smallest one, to the biggest, nothing like on the real aircraft! IAR is also similar story.

Not to overlook other brands, like Special Hobby, which just released a Twin Mustang with very doubtful accuracy, according to many posts on this and other forums.

Or MPM with their odd-looking Wellingtons or L-1 Vigilante with entirely blank interior despite large clear canopy or completely missed Tupolev SB bombers.

Since they are all expensive kits, their attitude towards accuracy is without any excuse. I already heard comments from other modelers that they are eager to have as many kits in range as possible with frequent new releases, on the account of accuracy and detail level. One really has to be very careful and whenever there is alternative kit on the market, MPM/Special Hobby/Azur is better to be avoided.

[IS_]

Are there any fatal errors with the IK-3: dimensions, shape/outline, cross sections etc.?

Although it still seems to be much better than the AZ release (fortunately, didn't buy it!), but it is hardly worth anything in case of above mentioned flaws...

[MarkoZG]

To be honest, the entire Frrom IK-3 kit is a fatal error.

Let's start:

-clear canopy has imaginative framing: all frames are vertical, while the ending frames of fixed windshield and movable hood should be angled

-spinner's shape is funny, it doesn't have the aerodinamical curve

-missing cannon in the spinner

-propeller blades are generic (somehow, I have a strong feeling that if we would compare some of MPM/SH/Azur kits side by side, we would find out that they share the same propeller, no mather of the nation or type)

-missing openings for fuselage machine guns

-strange curves of fuselage outline

-ailerons are too shallow - they look very funny

-veritical tail - completely wrong in outline - especially trailing edge curvature, nothing to do with IK-3

-small bulges on rear fuselage, fruit of someone's imagination

-front underfuselage radiatior grill is given as solid plastic part - do I really need to comment that?

-simplificated representation of u/c mechanism

and so on and so on and so on...

If all of this hasn't discouraged you, then you are really brave and talented scratch-builder!

Of course that most of this faults are correctable, with smaller or higher degree of complexity. But the question which then arises is why did we have to pay so much for such poor product, which is just a little step over scratch building.

It is also funny, like in the case of IK-2, that some older kits on the market were actually much more accurate.

The most accurate IK-3 so far in this scale (although far from perfect) is ancient Formaplane vacuform, but it has poor surface details. So, you can either wait for normal IK-3 kit to appear one day, or be masohistic and go into something like this.

[Jennings]

I have but one word for you: Azur

'Nuff said

[michaelas]

Dear Snorry!

Please buy 1/100 Alanger Il-18 and spray sand brown all over it!

Шурик-сука не пизди!

[IS_]

Well, unfortunately I've also ordered the Ik-3 last year (after some positive reviews) via a friend of mine and it is currently waiting to be sent to me some time later. It would be an exaggeration to say that I can't wait. ;-) At least I could save the shipping cost... Although the errors do seem to be correctable and I sure could be able to fix them, now I seriously doubt it, I'll become enthusiastic enough to do this one within the next 50 years... eBay is probably the way to go! ;-)

[michaelas]

Озорница приглашает к себе в гости.

В районе станции м. Кутузовская

тел. +7 964 531-0172, Юля.

[rpeck]

How are the Czech Master Resin kits of the IK-2 and IK-3?

Have both and was going to get the Azur kits but now I don't know ,maybe if cheap.

Thanks Rick

[MarkoZG]

Actually there are two different CMR IK-2 kits.

The older one is probably based on old GAZW injection IK-2 with some refinements, while the newer one is more detailed and comes with decals and etched parts. They are both superior in accuracy to Frrom-Azur kit. None of them is perfect, but at least they have some accurate components, with newer kit beeing a bit better.

Regarding their IK-3, it looks to origin from same or very similar master as Aviation Usk/X-otic kit.

It has some shape errors in too long spinner, fuselage back, etc. but seems to be much easier basis for achieving accurate IK-3 than the recent Frrom/Azur kit.

Edited February 3, 2011 by icey

[agboak]

My personal bias is for an accurate representation of a subject, so I think you are quite right to point out all the flaws in this kit. I'm grateful for such listings as very useful guides for modelling work. However, I'm also from a generation where if you wanted an IK.3, you started from a Hurricane. (I still have the US IPMS conversion article, somewhere.) So it seems to me that you are going somewhat over the top in response. No, it clearly isn't a very good representation. Yes, it does seem to need a bit of work. But next thing to scratchbuilding? Have you ever tried scratch-building in plasticard to this level of detail?

MPM and the other low-production soft tool companies have presented us with an immense range of subjects that would otherwise never have been seen. As a grateful enthusiast, I'm prepared to allow for a certain amount of extra work that strictly shouldn't be there. However, this is hardly unique to MPM or other Czechs - I strongly remember trying to make a Matchbox Halifax look like a Halifax, and struggling with an Airfix Yak.9.

[MarkoZG]

But next thing to scratchbuilding? Have you ever tried scratch-building in plasticard to this level of detail?

Yes I did. Actually, I made some master models. Comparing the time spent in making master from scratch and improving kits like this to acceptable level brought me to this conclusion. But when you start from scratch, you didn't have to pay for something that is considered to be a complete product before you begin. That is the most negative aspect of kits alike.

[Snorry]

icey

If we started to blame Azur, I also want to add their Devoitine 373/376 (and also D.371/372) - first (Sea Otter is second) their kit I bought. It is very innacurate too, but there is at least one good thing in it - decal. Its really superb! But in decals for Sea Otter also there are many mistakes - in fonts of serial numbers, in colours of 8S squadron's badge, even serial number for one british aircraft given as JN945 though it was JM945... And I say once again - it is a COMPLETE disaster.

As for scrathbuilding, the most serious problem fo me are decals and clear parts, especially with a 'blown' form (like Spitfire canopy). I never had build entire model from scratch, but to make nose or tail cone, engine cover or master-model of "simple' canopy - its really not hard task for me. But, after that, for what I had to pay so much?! For indolence of manufacturer never saw actual ac or photo?

And some additions to my first post. I had said that fuselage of Azur's Sea Otter is shorter, than real ac. It is not precisely that. It shorter, if we scaling photo of real ac to match Azur's canopy and wing. But in fact kit's overall dimensions are quite correct (for Sea Otters lenght of around 12 metres). But if we scaling photo to match length of Azur's fuselage, we see kit's fuselage is up to 3 mm higher than on photo! So the matter is, as I mentioned above, in totally different proportions of fuselages of real ac and Azur's kit (and all known drawings, and Aeroclub kit too). Scratchbuilding of entire fuselage seems the only way to make it accurate.

Just five minutes ago, when I was writing this, I have found another flaw - flaps and ailerons on upper (at least) wing. They are too broad on view from above (about 1.5 mm or so), and the aileron /wing joint line on photos looks straight, not bent! But on view from below it really bent, but just slightly - not as it is in kit.

The more photos of real aircraft I find, the less kit resembles it... COMPLETE... Azur... No more!

[caughtinthemiddle]

Regarding the IK-3 kit - these guys say it isn't so big disaster: http://sites.google.com/site/mythbustertea...ki-Ik-3-english

Icey, what references do you have on IK-2 and IK-3?

I have the first kit, will buy the second and would like to get make own opinion, but I don't have any sources to confront the kits with.

Best regards.

Edited February 12, 2011 by caughtinthemiddle

[rpeck]

Actually there are two different CMR IK-2 kits.

The older one is probably based on old GAZW injection IK-2 with some refinements, while the newer one is more detailed and comes with decals and etched parts. They are both superior in accuracy to Frrom-Azur kit. None of them is perfect, but at least they have some accurate components, with newer kit beeing a bit better.

Regarding their IK-3, it looks to origin from same or very similar master as Aviation Usk/X-otic kit.

It has some shape errors in too long spinner, fuselage back, etc. but seems to be much easier basis for achieving accurate IK-3 than the recent Frrom/Azur kit.

Sorry for the late response,forgot I posted here .

Have the second IK-2 .

I still hope Azur,MPM etc bring kits out because they do come out with the off the wall types that interest me.

Maybe they are inaccurate but better than I can scatch built.

Rick

[Damir]

Regarding the IK-3 kit - these guys say it isn't so big disaster: http://sites.google.com/site/mythbustertea...ki-Ik-3-english

Caughtinthemiddle,

please note that this website is anonymous. According to the advertisement for "Lift here" company, this website was done by small group of guys that are in business with Azur-FRROM (they sell this kit). These guys have also spread many good reviews of this kit all around the web. Unfortunately, this misleading process works...

I would also inform you that Azur/FRROM iz a brand owned by French. MPM company is only producer. This model was prepared on the basis of wrong drawings published in one French journal (it was FRROM/Azur owner's instruction to MPM).

[John Thompson]

Since we're laying the lumber onto Azur here, I might as well add that the errors in the 1/72 Polikarpov R-Z were a personal disappointment; here's a review, and I think there may be a couple of other flaws like rudder and fin shape that aren't mentioned, although it's been a while since I held any parts against drawings and then quietly, sadly, put the parts back into the box:

http://www.internetmodeler.com/2003/april/...oks/azur_rz.htm

Maybe South Front, or someone (please!), will eventually release an R-5/R-Z series based on Valentin Muchichko's incredible masters:

http://www.dishmodels.ru/gshow.htm?p=6314&lng=E

John