Jump to content

Revell Halifax Options


Mike M

Recommended Posts

I wonder if the nacelles have been distorted somewhat in the close up photos. In the shots of the "top colours" the nacelles look better. But really the truth will only emerge if measurements are taken and compared with the plans.

Better still - if the spinners on the props in the kit are being quoted somewhere as being the same as the Lanc, has anyone taken the trouble to measure the Halifax spinners against the Marriott/Granger plans ? If the spinners are smaller that possibly makes the actual nacelles at the front end too wide and too deep

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for those drawings Chris, really usefull.

I've compared the H2S from the Revell Lanc this morning and that one 'looks right' IMO. I'll take a picture of them both later and post it. When I build mine, I'll be using the Lanc one.

Perhaps aftermarket Hurricane props could be used:

http://www.modelhobbies.co.uk/shop/quickbo...ol-p-36747.html

Although the hubs still need to be addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.modelhobbies.co.uk/shop/quickbo...ol-p-36747.html

Although the hubs still need to be addressed.

Any accurate Hurricane prop will be much too small in diameter, as the engines are differently geared with the Halifax having the ground clearance to accommodate a much lower geared, larger diameter, more efficient prop. On the drawings shown above the various Halifax props are shown as either 13' diameter or 12' 9". Hurricane props are generally in the range of 10' 6" to 11' diameter.

Edited by Work In Progress
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, took a picture of the radome comparison and the Lancaster one looks right...

DSCF0112.jpg

Apologies for the poor piccy.

In fact I've never seen one look like this...until now :unsure:

Out of interest, has anyone lined up the Matchbox engines to the new Revell kit to see if grafting these on could be an option ?

Edited by woody37
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit the more I read about this Revell Halifax the more I am feeling disappointed. Much the same way as I felt when I saw the exaggerated geodetic framing on the Trumpeter Wellington.

Certainly those propellers are clearly off, the radiators aren't the best and that H2S fairing looks strange. One thing that also concerns me is the contour of the scallop on the starboard side of the nose ahead of the canopy. The Granger drawings in the Aerodata booklet on the Halifax seem to me to show something that is more shallow and subtle than the rather flat wedge shape on the model. Now I haven't seen the kit and normally I prefer not to comment too loudly or nitpick until I actually see the plastic for myself but right now I'm beginning to make a mental check list of things to fix when I do eventually get the kit. It is a pity really because a decent Halifax is sorely needed.

Revell have done some strange things recently - the flat dihedral on the Lancaster, the very odd undercarriage on the 1/48 Mosquito and the heavy panel detail on the B17. I wonder why this is because these all seem to be problems that could have been sorted out early in the design process and certainly none of those kits are of aircraft that are not already available from other manufacturers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should not do this but it is on their web site.....

"The authentic model-building experience for generations.

Since 1945, Revell has been the leader in plastic model kits. Our designers are passionate about scale model authenticity and model building. Choose from our huge selection of accurately detailed cars, trucks, ships, aircraft, spacecraft plus much more and say "I Made That!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better still - if the spinners on the props in the kit are being quoted somewhere as being the same as the Lanc, has anyone taken the trouble to measure the Halifax spinners against the Marriott/Granger plans ? If the spinners are smaller that possibly makes the actual nacelles at the front end too wide and too deep

Ken

I'm answering my own question here and it ain't good :-(( According to the Merrick plans, the rear of the spinner on the Halifax measure .329 inches (8.36mm) but in the kit, the rear of the spinner measures .415 inches (10.53 mm). If this is the case it might then follow that the actual engine cowling where the prop is fitted might be too wide

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something has gone wrong at the design stage, which is quite sad as there is good reference material available, indeed a trip to london has an original nose section and a complete although not restored MkII where dimensions could of been referenced. My personal concern is that I bought this kit to build immediately and now I'm thinking of holding fire as it won't have the characteristic profile that the Merlin Halibag has.

My thoughts so far:

Replace the H2S with a Revell Lanc one

Milliput the slab sided fuselage in front of the cockpit to give it a subtle curve -

Possibly source a Matchbox Halifax and use the engines from that if they marry up OK as these 'look' more correct in profile. I'm gutted as I sold one when I found out this was coming out !!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm answering my own question here and it ain't good :-(( According to the Merrick plans, the rear of the spinner on the Halifax measure .329 inches (8.36mm) but in the kit, the rear of the spinner measures .415 inches (10.53 mm). If this is the case it might then follow that the actual engine cowling where the prop is fitted might be too wide. Add to this the Matchbox spinners match the Merrick plans perfectly

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All rather disappointing is it not? I had the feeling that things were looking good - like Airfix and the Swordfish. I have sent an email to Revell asking for comment - could I encourage others to do so? Numbers might help. I wonder if "Reviewers" in the various magazines will highlight these issues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chaps,

While I am also a bit disappointed in the fact that this is not an oob build, let's not get too carried away on the downside. The H2S fairing and front of the cockpit should not take more advanced modelling techniques than a layer of filler and 5 minutes of sanding to improve.

I do understand that correcting the engine cowling width will be a bit more involved, but I'm not convinced this is that difficult. I am thinking of cutting a slot in the top and bottom of each of the cowling halves just in front of the wings, then bending in the sides and securing with plastic strip. When dry, this means that the front part of each cowling half viewed from above will not be parallel. A bit of time with a sheet of wet n dry should sort that out. The front part of the cowlings will then be less wide, which should improve the look. The radiators may need a bit of surgery to fit (cut in half, remove a couple of mils of width and reglue) but again this shouldn't be that involved. A bit of wet n dry on the cowling top should restore a more circular profile on which to mount the spinners (which I may chop a little on length, hence reducing their diameter).

This leaves the props, which again a bit of sanding to reduce the width of the tips should improve.

The above may sound involved, but I don't think it is too bad. Annoying, yes; irritating, yes; unnecessary, yes - if Revell had got these details right in the first place; difficult, not particularly - and I am no scratch builder, let me assure you. Of course, it all depends on what your idea of "good enough" is. Given my overall lack of skill, I am probably less discerning than some.

Anyway, I plan to build mine in February for a GB on another forum. I'll let you know how I get on - and I will be happy to eat humble pie if necessary in due course. :)

regards,

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not overly worried about not being an OOb build - in fact prefer to have to do a bit of scratch building etc. And most of the issues are not beyond the average builder.

Admittedly I have not seen the kit but I have confidence in some of the people to whom I have spoken. The nacelles do look wrong in toto - but your ideas are interesting and it will be very useful to see how successful you are. I have some doubts frankly.

But this is all very well - really the question one has to ask (which I have of Revell) is why this obvious error? They had the plans - like so many times before there seems to be no "technical" reason for the error so why. You see I am a not charitable in this respect - and do not consider that a company the size of and with the resources of Revell should be permitted to get away with it. They will of course because the kit will sell - either because people will be unaware or simply charitable!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit the more I read about this Revell Halifax the more I am feeling disappointed. Much the same way as I felt when I saw the exaggerated geodetic framing on the Trumpeter Wellington.

Certainly those propellers are clearly off, the radiators aren't the best and that H2S fairing looks strange. One thing that also concerns me is the contour of the scallop on the starboard side of the nose ahead of the canopy. The Granger drawings in the Aerodata booklet on the Halifax seem to me to show something that is more shallow and subtle than the rather flat wedge shape on the model. Now I haven't seen the kit and normally I prefer not to comment too loudly or nitpick until I actually see the plastic for myself but right now I'm beginning to make a mental check list of things to fix when I do eventually get the kit. It is a pity really because a decent Halifax is sorely needed.

Revell have done some strange things recently - the flat dihedral on the Lancaster, the very odd undercarriage on the 1/48 Mosquito and the heavy panel detail on the B17. I wonder why this is because these all seem to be problems that could have been sorted out early in the design process and certainly none of those kits are of aircraft that are not already available from other manufacturers.

I agree with your observations on the Halifax. Thanks for bringing up the detail of the nose scallop. I have managed to correct it with a small smear of "Milliput" after studying the photograph on page 20 of "Halifax in action" which clearly shows that Revell's error lies in continuing the forward vee of the scallop to a point too far towards the blister behind the nose turret. This has resulted in the lower line of the scallop being lower on the fuselage than it should be, and increasing the scalloped area.

Milliput also solves the the H2S radome problem, but you need to consult a lot of photographs to achieve the correct shape. The engines and spinners are the greatest problem, since they appear bulky, excessively square in section, and taper insufficiently to the spinner,making it too large in diameter. I think that I will have to accept this, though I may attempt to make the spinners more straight tapered. I've already re-shaped the propellers to something approaching the correct shape. The four-bladed spinners of the later aircraft should be less of a problem.

I have enjoyed tackling a couple of these kits over Christmas. Despite the faults, they are the best "Halifax"kits available, and will probably remain so. I hope that Revell continues to produce similar subjects. Correcting the faults adds to the enjoyment in some ways!

Bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some good replies here guys, can I ask you kind gentlemen to put some pics up of your progress with these areas so we can all learn from your experience. I'm confident on tackling the 'scollop' and h2s, but open to ideas and suggestions on getting the engines more life like. I've put mine back for a while until I feel more confident on 'sorting it out' !........OK so I've chickened out temporarily :lol:

I'm still tempted to 'graft' a set of matchbox ones on and possibly look at making some masters for someone to create some resin replacements

Edit: Bill, just had a look at that pic on the scollop and indeed it deos have one, so I'm a little less concerned with it's presence on the kit, just perhaps a little taming !

Thanks

Neil

Edited by woody37
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your observations on the Halifax. Thanks for bringing up the detail of the nose scallop. I have managed to correct it with a small smear of "Milliput" after studying the photograph on page 20 of "Halifax in action" which clearly shows that Revell's error lies in continuing the forward vee of the scallop to a point too far towards the blister behind the nose turret. This has resulted in the lower line of the scallop being lower on the fuselage than it should be, and increasing the scalloped area.

Milliput also solves the the H2S radome problem, but you need to consult a lot of photographs to achieve the correct shape. The engines and spinners are the greatest problem, since they appear bulky, excessively square in section, and taper insufficiently to the spinner,making it too large in diameter. I think that I will have to accept this, though I may attempt to make the spinners more straight tapered. I've already re-shaped the propellers to something approaching the correct shape. The four-bladed spinners of the later aircraft should be less of a problem.

I have enjoyed tackling a couple of these kits over Christmas. Despite the faults, they are the best "Halifax"kits available, and will probably remain so. I hope that Revell continues to produce similar subjects. Correcting the faults adds to the enjoyment in some ways!

Bill.

Whilst I commend your attempts to recitify the errors in the kit, I think that we should all remember that this is not a 'short-run' kit from either a cottage industry or from some obscure Eastern European source. We have a major manufacturer which prides itself on quality and accuracy that has produced a long-awaited model with so many obvious faults that it unbelievable. Why should we have to resort to correcting faults that should not have been there in the first place given the amount of information such as plans, photographs and even drawings that are readily available ? I think that we all accept having to fill one way or another some areas in most model kits but to resort to 'cut here' or 'a smear of Milliput' or even suggesting robbing the old Matchbox kits of parts is faintly ludicrous and as for putting moveable control surfaces on a kit in this scale.....that went out with the Ark. I purchased the Halifax when it first appeared and was even give a further two at Christmas from friends but if this kit is an example of future British aircraft from this company then I for one am going to stick my hands in my pockets and wait

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I commend your attempts to recitify the errors in the kit, I think that we should all remember that this is not a 'short-run' kit from either a cottage industry or from some obscure Eastern European source. We have a major manufacturer which prides itself on quality and accuracy that has produced a long-awaited model with so many obvious faults that it unbelievable. Why should we have to resort to correcting faults that should not have been there in the first place given the amount of information such as plans, photographs and even drawings that are readily available ? I think that we all accept having to fill one way or another some areas in most model kits but to resort to 'cut here' or 'a smear of Milliput' or even suggesting robbing the old Matchbox kits of parts is faintly ludicrous and as for putting moveable control surfaces on a kit in this scale.....that went out with the Ark. I purchased the Halifax when it first appeared and was even give a further two at Christmas from friends but if this kit is an example of future British aircraft from this company then I for one am going to stick my hands in my pockets and wait

Ken

Hello Ken,

I'm sorry that the kit has disappointed you so much.I must confess that some of the errors disappoint, but I am still glad to have seen the kit produced. Please be careful when quoting published drawings as references,however. They seldom agree, and often do not even agree with photographic evidence on adjacent pages. I always look for as much photographic evidence as possible, and sympathise with manufacturers who have fallen into the trap of using inaccurate drawings. I'm sure that they would have liked to have produced the perfect kit. Oh, by the way, another error exists in the kit. The fuel dump pipes are circular in section, and should be square,

Happy modelling,

Bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the parts that we're questioning looked remotely like drawings or photographs, I'm sure we'd be happy. These aren't slight inaccuracies, but quite major flaws that need to be reworked. I agree with Ken, however rather than this thread spiraling into one which slates the kit with no beneficial outcome other than to vent frustration, perhaps we focus on what can be done to correct it.

Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Ken,

I'm sorry that the kit has disappointed you so much.I must confess that some of the errors disappoint, but I am still glad to have seen the kit produced. Please be careful when quoting published drawings as references,however. They seldom agree, and often do not even agree with photographic evidence on adjacent pages. I always look for as much photographic evidence as possible, and sympathise with manufacturers who have fallen into the trap of using inaccurate drawings. I'm sure that they would have liked to have produced the perfect kit. Oh, by the way, another error exists in the kit. The fuel dump pipes are circular in section, and should be square,

Happy modelling,

Bill.

It is not that I am disappointed but more angry. The plans that I supplied (as did others) were those by Marriot and Granger and are probably the best available yet these seem to have got 'lost' in preparing this kit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have both the Revell Reissue of the Matchbox kit along with the new tool Revell kit I thought I would make some comparisons.

First up are the Propellers. I have put together a comparison of the original Matchbox kit props, the new Revell Props and the Aeroclub ones. The Revell may be sanded to give a better representation but may need extra material adding in places if they are to be made completely accurate which could be tricky to get right on all blades for all engines.

Prop Blade Comparison

HalibagProps.jpg

Nacelles

I’ve dry fitted an outboard nacelle from each kit and the Revell ones are much wider. In fact they are so wide you can just about pass the Matchbox one through the inside of the new Revell ones.

HalibagNacelles.jpg

HalibagNacelles2.jpg

HalibagNacelles3.jpg

If you cut a section out to make the nacelle narrower then the whole nacelle would have to be reprofiled to get it circular at the front. It may also affect the fit of the landing gear on the inboard ones.

Not a correction that is going to be easy and get right all four engines

Top Wings

Another area that differs on both kits is the area where the engine nacelle fairs into the wings. I’ve done a couple of comparison shots with drawings and photos and neither kit looks 100% in this area so some correction will be required here whichever kit you have.

HalibagTopWings.jpg

HalibagWings.jpg

H2S Fairing

As pointed out the H2S Fairing differs on both kits. As can be seen from the pic below the Matchbox one looks to be the more accurate of the two.

HalibagH2SFairing.jpg

By flattening the top and building up the sides with Milliput I think it will be a fairly simple task to correct the kit part.

HalibagH2SFairingtop.jpg

HalibagH2SFairingSide.jpg

The new Revell Halifax is a great kit that is let down by major inaccuracies regarding the engine nacelles. Hopefully someone brings out a correction set as I think sales may suffer due to these issues and it may discourage Revell from producing further varients. I was going to ditch the Matchbox Halifax on acquiring this one but think I will press on with it and think about trying to correct the new Revell one once I’ve done this one. The new kit will yield some useful spares though.

Hope people find the pics useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thankyou very much, a most useful reply giving good clarity on the issues.

I'm not sure how sales will be hit with these issues. I suspect it will sell well due to price and high street availability.

How feasible do you think it would be to attach the Matchbox wings to the Revell fuselage ?

Edited by woody37
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the parts that we're questioning looked remotely like drawings or photographs, I'm sure we'd be happy. These aren't slight inaccuracies, but quite major flaws that need to be reworked. I agree with Ken, however rather than this thread spiraling into one which slates the kit with no beneficial outcome other than to vent frustration, perhaps we focus on what can be done to correct it.

Neil

Weird, isn't it? How often do we read the phrase "the old (usually Airfix!) xxx kit is very crude but the outlines are good"? We've now gone to the other extreme of beautifully detailed and engineered kits which have blindingly obvious flaws in them. Maybe patternmakers nowadays are intrigued more by the challenges of engineering the kit than by those of producing something which actually, to quote Airfix in days of yore, "looks just like the real thing".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thankyou very much, a most useful reply giving good clarity on the issues.

I'm not sure how sales will be hit with these issues. I suspect it will sell well due to price and high street availability.

How feasible do you think it would be to attach the Matchbox wings to the Revell fuselage ?

Glad you found the response useful.

The Matchbox wing recesses into the fuselage by a couple of mil so you would need to shorten them at the wing root in order for them to fit but once you've done this I can't see it being a problem. There is an issue with the outer nacelles on the Matchbox wing in that the outboard engines are parellel to the wing as opposed to the ground. The best option maybe to try and get the Matchbox nacelles to fit the Revell wing either way is probably possible.

As Revell also own the Matchbox tooling you would have thought they would compare the two and spotted the engine issue early on in production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"and sympathise with manufacturers who have fallen into the trap of using inaccurate drawings. I'm sure that they would have liked to have produced the perfect kit."

I am sorry but I cannot join you on this - "falling into the simple trap of using inaccurate drawings"?? If they are that naive then should they be in business? Most modellers can claim to know the accurate draughtsmen and those who are not - from experience. And can they not compare photographs? No it suggests a casual approach because the market actually requires nothing else.

If they would like to produce the perfect kit then they should demonstrate this by trying just a little harder. I recognise that a "perfect kit" would for a variety of valid reasons not be possible - but one a lot nearer to "perfection" than the one under discussion must be possible. After all the the Airfix and matchbox (original) kits produced in somewhat agricultural conditions in comparison are not that bad?

If I sound terse then it is a generation thing. Only the best is good enough etc. So I am in fact attempting (probably in vane I know) to get them to try harder - but I feel almost alone. "perhaps we focus on what can be done to correct it". But I recognise the author meant correct the kit - do their job for them! And accept second best! 'Tis easier I supose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have both the Revell Reissue of the Matchbox kit along with the new tool Revell kit I thought I would make some comparisons. ....

Hope people find the pics useful.

Thanks for taking the time to make those comparisons.

Both kits really are a bit of a dog's breakfast, and it is not even a simple fix of taking the best from both as neither are anything to write home about. Looks like some serious work ahead to fix the problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...