My older brother made one of these in the early seventies and I remember you could take it all apart into all of its stages , we used to restage the moon landings from launch to return , they also did a moon buggy and Helicopter recovery which included the command module with inflateable raft modelled onto it ! Superb bit of work from Airfix !
I recall the rotors were attached inside the Sikorsky's fuselage to a winding mechanism to allow you to pull the command module up using cotton thread.
Awesome!... I have a previous kit release... Buzz Aldrin came to NZ in 2010 and spoke about his experience ON the Moon and in space.. thanks from NZ 👍🇳🇿🚀
Built this when I was eleven years old - got it as a birthday gift. Made a mess of the decals but it was the biggest kit I'd built up to that time and I was very proud of it!
I have just ordered this kit, I haven't built a model since I was a kid decades ago. Came across your channel for the first time, so looking forward to seeing how you go about this build and hoping to pick up some pointers for getting back into modeling. Thanks. Sub'd.
I remember building one when I was a kid (like most of the folks in the comments), it was a great kit. I'm not sure if I built the Revell, but the stage 4 was opening like a flower and it was working fine even without cleaning too much the flashing on the hinges, as a 12 years old kid. Once finished, it's an impressive piece. Now, in 2021, looking at it, the ribbing bothers me, they could have, even back then, molded at least the conical parts separately, but it was different times when kits were designed to be cool and easy for kids, accuracy was not a real issue. I'm tempted to get one, perhaps when I'll be done with my stash, in 150 years...Great review, Nigel, Thank you.
I have this kit and looking forward to seeing how you go about masking the ribbed areas of the rocket and cleaning up the awkward sprue attachment points. Nice review 😉👍
Hi Peter, The sprue connection points on the ribbed parts are on the raised areas anyway, which I will rescribe and sand to make them round rather than protrude at the seam. Masking is pretty easy.. I'll try a couple of different methods and see how it goes.
Oh my. This kit makes me feel old. You have to go for the full set, and do the old Airfix 1/72 SeaKing recovery helicopter, and perhaps the Vostok, which is much more manageable size, if you can find them of course. I always thought the Russian kit looked more sci-fi than the Saturn V.
Hi Nigel, This is the kit! It is far superior to the Revell. I will send you my full build with the Saturn V Ultimate Saturn V Decals which is a must for this kit and all the modifications. Matt Irvine did the upgrade on the Spacecraft Lunar Adaptor (SLA) and the Block II CSM. You will notice the J2 Engines on both the Stage II (Pathetic on the Revell) & Stage 3 (S-IVB) are a lot nicer.
@@NigelsModellingBench mine is pretty much out of the box and is all sprayed via aerosol rattle cans. The mods I am talking about are basic but lead to a better Apollo flight example. The tear drop mouldings on the second stage can be eradicated straight away as these are not on the actual Saturn V. The big let down is the CM, this is mainly covered by the Blast Protection Cover (BPC).
Considering the half-arsed revamp, I think £50 is a bit cheeky for such an old kit. I did a google search for images to check out the paint layout and happened upon an image of the 1/34 scale model c/w launch tower in the Smithsonian. Now that is awesome!
I respectfully beg to differ. As just one example, for the same money, I could get an Eduard Dual Combo boxing with two high quality Me109G kits. I know which I would rather blow £50 on.
@@johnkelly2098 - You almost certainly know the market better. I haven’t bought a kit that cost more than £15 in recent years. But then I do mainly 1/72 and am not into aircraft.
That command module is poor. I like how the updated the CSM but left the glaringly poor CM. If anyone was wandering yes, the Airfix Saturn 1B is has the exact same issue.
If ever a kit needed updating it's this one! Being of a certain age, I built the original at the time of the moon landings and was happy with it, but for the 50th anniversary I did the Revell 1/96 with aftermarket corrections where available. If I hadn't built that I would have got the Airfix kit but I'm glad I didn't as it still has issues such as the grooves, incorrect painting guide and worst of all, that Command Module! And the big Revell is so much more imposing too, though not without its own errors. The Dragon kit is probably the most accurate, but everything's built for you and where's the fun in that?
Not 1/48 Phil, it is 1/72. I'm not sure it's been re-released, I think another company may be making under license, certainly that's what it says in the description on the Ebay sales?
@@NigelsModellingBench yes found that out when I googled the Dragon kit just before I went to sleep - 1/48 would have made that a very big kit when built 😀
At time if writing, I happen to be building this kit. The supplied CM is indeed the undersize one. I'm attempting to scratch build a replacement myself as the kit part just looks silly. (@NMB - if you still have your built Revell version, perhaps take a cast off that kit's CM...?) A few notes if you will indulge me dear Internet: The top of the tank (part 25, build stage 5) in the S2 is too low down if fitted it in the moulded groves in parts 28/29 - it should be higher up in line with the bottom of ribbed band on the outside (basically the ribs are wherever there isn't a tank full of propellant.) It's relatively easy fix to pack it up with some plastic card essentially making some new tabs higher up. But check that the S3 engine then doesn't foul. EDIT - Having checked my instruction sheet, interestingly the instructions (stage 5) show the correct location, but parts 28/29 have the location "groves" moulded in too low down (at least, they did in my kit.) The legs on the LES are different lengths, two "long" legs locate in holes in the blast shield, two short ones just land on a platform. I wish I'd paid a bit more attention to the fit of the main S1 halves (parts 20/21) in terms of how they align on the base (part 5): After gluing mine up, I found the resultant tube was over size for the lower part "stepped out" a bit from the part 5 ribs instead of being "stepped in" or lined up. This necessitating a bit of "creative mis-shaping" of the tube to get better alignment. With hindsight, I should have done more test fitting ahead of cementing the S1 p20/21 tube halves as it would have been easier to sand down the two halves along the join faces to a better fit rather than fix (and mis-shape) the "completed" tube later. If I got all rivet county, I could find lots of other "issues" and a few sink marks, but I decided to keep chanting the mantra "this is an old kit sold a children's toy," close my eyes and try to ignore most of it (for example, some of the moulding I found a bit "soft" on the F1's & LEM.) Though I did add a few extra pipes here and there, drilled a few holes for vents and ullage motors added and a few boxes and blobs on back ends to "busy" them up a bit. (4mm spherical headed drawing pins make rather good helium tanks!) Good luck.
It would be also extremely nice if some manufacturer would make the Russian N1 rocket at the same scale ( Zvezda, I'm talking to you!), there is a few 3d model files around, so it might be possible to print it 3d in SLA, but costly.
I'll look forward to this build. I may well be wrong, but isnt some of of the external pipeing missing ? (or is that Revell). I built it as a kid, so a modernised version would be excellent. I have thought about building the Vostok launcher from Airfix more than once.
Yeah, not so bad with kits like this with its big chunky parts, but when its something like a ship kit, or a biplane, lots of little parts get broken. Talking of big boxes, used needlessly, did you see my Revell 1/32 Bf110 review? Now that is a joke!!
@@sirrathersplendid4825 One should never judge a book by the cover. I know we all like to think were getting more for our money. But if its quality one wants then Good things come in small packages
Dont you just love Airfix? QC and packaging etc are next to zero. To me the kits seem to be very good until the second it leaves the design department and heads off for manufacture
My older brother made one of these in the early seventies and I remember you could take it all apart into all of its stages , we used to restage the moon landings from launch to return , they also did a moon buggy and Helicopter recovery which included the command module with inflateable raft modelled onto it ! Superb bit of work from Airfix !
I recall the rotors were attached inside the Sikorsky's fuselage to a winding mechanism to allow you to pull the command module up using cotton thread.
@@spitfiremark1a768 I built the standard Sea King which had this feature but I didn't know about the Apollo version.
Awesome!... I have a previous kit release... Buzz Aldrin came to NZ in 2010 and spoke about his experience ON the Moon and in space.. thanks from NZ 👍🇳🇿🚀
I got one of those for Christmas 1970. I was up and had it built before my parents got up. My Dad was livid!
Built this when I was eleven years old - got it as a birthday gift. Made a mess of the decals but it was the biggest kit I'd built up to that time and I was very proud of it!
I have just ordered this kit, I haven't built a model since I was a kid decades ago. Came across your channel for the first time, so looking forward to seeing how you go about this build and hoping to pick up some pointers for getting back into modeling. Thanks. Sub'd.
Welcome aboard!
Great review Nigel, I love the Saturn V. I have the Revell kit. I really want this Airfix kit.
You should!
I remember building one when I was a kid (like most of the folks in the comments), it was a great kit. I'm not sure if I built the Revell, but the stage 4 was opening like a flower and it was working fine even without cleaning too much the flashing on the hinges, as a 12 years old kid. Once finished, it's an impressive piece. Now, in 2021, looking at it, the ribbing bothers me, they could have, even back then, molded at least the conical parts separately, but it was different times when kits were designed to be cool and easy for kids, accuracy was not a real issue. I'm tempted to get one, perhaps when I'll be done with my stash, in 150 years...Great review, Nigel, Thank you.
It looks like a good kit with with some inaccuracies, but with some research it can be corrected. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for watching!
I have this kit and looking forward to seeing how you go about masking the ribbed areas of the rocket and cleaning up the awkward sprue attachment points. Nice review 😉👍
Hi Peter, The sprue connection points on the ribbed parts are on the raised areas anyway, which I will rescribe and sand to make them round rather than protrude at the seam. Masking is pretty easy.. I'll try a couple of different methods and see how it goes.
Oh my. This kit makes me feel old. You have to go for the full set, and do the old Airfix 1/72 SeaKing recovery helicopter, and perhaps the Vostok, which is much more manageable size, if you can find them of course. I always thought the Russian kit looked more sci-fi than the Saturn V.
Hi Nigel, This is the kit! It is far superior to the Revell. I will send you my full build with the Saturn V Ultimate Saturn V Decals which is a must for this kit and all the modifications. Matt Irvine did the upgrade on the Spacecraft Lunar Adaptor (SLA) and the Block II CSM. You will notice the J2 Engines on both the Stage II (Pathetic on the Revell) & Stage 3 (S-IVB) are a lot nicer.
I actually plan to build this OOB Al. As you know I have the 1/96 with all the bells and whistles if i want to go that route.
@@NigelsModellingBench mine is pretty much out of the box and is all sprayed via aerosol rattle cans. The mods I am talking about are basic but lead to a better Apollo flight example. The tear drop mouldings on the second stage can be eradicated straight away as these are not on the actual Saturn V. The big let down is the CM, this is mainly covered by the Blast Protection Cover (BPC).
@@alkearns3216 I have the Airfix Modellers world magazine issue 1 which has a build guide.. is that any good?
@@NigelsModellingBench If that is the Matt Irvine build you are good to go. I will send you mine as well for reference. Have a good one.
@@alkearns3216 yes mate. It is Mat Irvine.
Considering the half-arsed revamp, I think £50 is a bit cheeky for such an old kit. I did a google search for images to check out the paint layout and happened upon an image of the 1/34 scale model c/w launch tower in the Smithsonian. Now that is awesome!
It wasn’t so cheap when it first came out back in around 1970. These days even a simple aircraft kit can set you back that much.
I respectfully beg to differ. As just one example, for the same money, I could get an Eduard Dual Combo boxing with two high quality Me109G kits. I know which I would rather blow £50 on.
@@johnkelly2098 - You almost certainly know the market better. I haven’t bought a kit that cost more than £15 in recent years. But then I do mainly 1/72 and am not into aircraft.
I would put the LEM and Command module on a small display somehow attached to the base and leave the rocket as is. :)
I'd have opened the box and said "Houston, we have a problem!"
Thanks for the review. Interesting stuff 😉 I’ve got the 1:96 kit and the Dragon kit.
That command module is poor. I like how the updated the CSM but left the glaringly poor CM. If anyone was wandering yes, the Airfix Saturn 1B is has the exact same issue.
If ever a kit needed updating it's this one! Being of a certain age, I built the original at the time of the moon landings and was happy with it, but for the 50th anniversary I did the Revell 1/96 with aftermarket corrections where available. If I hadn't built that I would have got the Airfix kit but I'm glad I didn't as it still has issues such as the grooves, incorrect painting guide and worst of all, that Command Module! And the big Revell is so much more imposing too, though not without its own errors. The Dragon kit is probably the most accurate, but everything's built for you and where's the fun in that?
Original kit takes me back - I think I built it as a callow youth, that and the Saturn 1. I think Dragon also released their big 1/48 again recently.
Not 1/48 Phil, it is 1/72. I'm not sure it's been re-released, I think another company may be making under license, certainly that's what it says in the description on the Ebay sales?
@@NigelsModellingBench yes found that out when I googled the Dragon kit just before I went to sleep - 1/48 would have made that a very big kit when built 😀
Oops, just the lettering for the decals, you, my man, are going to be doing some masking and painting.
Yeah, i did it all before on the Revell kit.. it's in a build video if you want to see it.
@@NigelsModellingBench Yeuppers, I'll take a peek. These builds and unboxings are a blast. Been modeling since 75'..
I had the estes rocket version of Dr. Werner Von Braun's Saturn rocket, it flew, but it wasnt a good flyer. This kit looks pretty snazzy...
At time if writing, I happen to be building this kit. The supplied CM is indeed the undersize one. I'm attempting to scratch build a replacement myself as the kit part just looks silly. (@NMB - if you still have your built Revell version, perhaps take a cast off that kit's CM...?)
A few notes if you will indulge me dear Internet:
The top of the tank (part 25, build stage 5) in the S2 is too low down if fitted it in the moulded groves in parts 28/29 - it should be higher up in line with the bottom of ribbed band on the outside (basically the ribs are wherever there isn't a tank full of propellant.) It's relatively easy fix to pack it up with some plastic card essentially making some new tabs higher up. But check that the S3 engine then doesn't foul. EDIT - Having checked my instruction sheet, interestingly the instructions (stage 5) show the correct location, but parts 28/29 have the location "groves" moulded in too low down (at least, they did in my kit.)
The legs on the LES are different lengths, two "long" legs locate in holes in the blast shield, two short ones just land on a platform.
I wish I'd paid a bit more attention to the fit of the main S1 halves (parts 20/21) in terms of how they align on the base (part 5): After gluing mine up, I found the resultant tube was over size for the lower part "stepped out" a bit from the part 5 ribs instead of being "stepped in" or lined up. This necessitating a bit of "creative mis-shaping" of the tube to get better alignment. With hindsight, I should have done more test fitting ahead of cementing the S1 p20/21 tube halves as it would have been easier to sand down the two halves along the join faces to a better fit rather than fix (and mis-shape) the "completed" tube later.
If I got all rivet county, I could find lots of other "issues" and a few sink marks, but I decided to keep chanting the mantra "this is an old kit sold a children's toy," close my eyes and try to ignore most of it (for example, some of the moulding I found a bit "soft" on the F1's & LEM.) Though I did add a few extra pipes here and there, drilled a few holes for vents and ullage motors added and a few boxes and blobs on back ends to "busy" them up a bit. (4mm spherical headed drawing pins make rather good helium tanks!)
Good luck.
Thank you Dave. i shall keep those notes.
How disappointing, that the kit wasn't upgraded properly. I know you'll make it right.
I built this in the 60s when I was a kid and then built another in the 70s
I built this in the 60s and 70s
Not in the 60's.. it was released in 1970.
It would be also extremely nice if some manufacturer would make the Russian N1 rocket at the same scale ( Zvezda, I'm talking to you!), there is a few 3d model files around, so it might be possible to print it 3d in SLA, but costly.
I'll look forward to this build. I may well be wrong, but isnt some of of the external pipeing missing ? (or is that Revell). I built it as a kid, so a modernised version would be excellent. I have thought about building the Vostok launcher from Airfix more than once.
Classic kit - although I still prefer the 70s artwork.
I agree - that painting of it as it left the launch pad looked fantastic!
I dont mind the single bag. But it would be better if the box was smaller to prevent the contents moving around
Yeah, not so bad with kits like this with its big chunky parts, but when its something like a ship kit, or a biplane, lots of little parts get broken. Talking of big boxes, used needlessly, did you see my Revell 1/32 Bf110 review? Now that is a joke!!
Big presents are more impressive than small ones!
@@sirrathersplendid4825 One should never judge a book by the cover. I know we all like to think were getting more for our money. But if its quality one wants then Good things come in small packages
Any idea when you're going to build this ?
May do a Xmas build of this one buddy??
That's great ..be watching from Alabama..
Dont you just love Airfix? QC and packaging etc are next to zero. To me the kits seem to be very good until the second it leaves the design department and heads off for manufacture
Totally agree